Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Limited List Prescribing

Mr. Raffan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales
if he will make a statement on the proposals to limit the range of drugs prescribed under the National
Health Service.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): The proposals for limited list prescribing announced on 8
November 1984 by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services have been the
subject of consultation with the medical, dental and pharmaceutical professions and the pharmaceutical
industry. The consultation period ended on 31 January and the many responses received are now being
considered.

Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend give the most
serious consideration to the introduction of an over-rule that drugs not on the list may be prescribed
under the NHS subject to accountability to the local general medical committee? Would that not ensure
not only that doctors could meet all clinical needs, but that they would be less likely to trade up, which
could dramatically reduce savings?

Mr. Roberts: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comment.
He will know that it is our intention that the list of NHS drugs should meet all clinical needs, but if it is

demonstrated that there is a real problem in particular circumstances, we shall consider how best to deal
with it. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion.

Mr. Abse: The 900 people employed at the
Parke-Davis factory in my constituency could be severely affected if the list is restricted. Has the
Secretary of State for Wales, as I requested, made representations to his colleague the Secretary of
State for Social Services pointing out the serious employment consequences if the proposed drugs list
goes through?

Mr. Roberts: My right hon. Friend has of course
been closely involved with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services because of
the responsibility that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has for health in Wales. He
has made known his views about likely effects on the pharmaceutical industry in Wales. I cannot
comment further on our proposal until conclusions have been reached.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is it possible for my hon.
Friend to give assurances that where there is a long history of a patient being allergic or intolerant to
certain generic drugs, but able to take some particular proprietary drug, the doctor will have some
scope for selecting such a drug?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend is basically on the same
point as my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Raffan), and I stress yet again that it is our intention
that the list should meet all clinical needs, but we are aware of problems, and they will be considered
before the final list is drawn up.

Dr. Roger Thomas: Why does the Minister not
accept the method suggested by the Greenfield report, which will lead to savings in the drugs bill that
will not discriminate against the less well-off members of our society?

Mr. Roberts: We have no intention of discriminating
against the less well-off members of our society, and I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the
comments by my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health in an Adjournment debate last
Thursday. He said:
The Government have no intention of debarring any of the poor or elderly from the treatment,
free if necessary, under the NHS that they require. We have every intention that under the NHS it should
be possible for doctors and patients to have access


to a complete list of preparations, which is sufficient to cope with all the clinical and medical needs of
the service."—[Official Report, 7 February 1985; Vol. 72, c.
1231.]

Mr. Best: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a
capacity for real saving in the prescribing of drugs by ensuring that doctors, whether through oversight
or otherwise, do not over-prescribe? Many recipients of drugs commonly find that they are given far
more than they need for a course of treatment. Will my hon. Friend look into that aspect?

Mr. Roberts: The point has been made by hon.
Members on each side of the House, in particular in the debate on 8 November. There has been a
doubling of the cost of drugs used in Wales. In 1978–79 the cost was £41·2
million; in 1983–84 it had risen to £80·7 million. That is an increase of 96
per cent.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister appreciate that
Aneurin Bevan introduced a National Health Service based on the principle that the best health service
should be available to all, and that money should not be the consideration or the passport to better and
quicker treatment?
Does he further appreciate that the proposal to limit the range of drugs will, if implemented, bring a
two-tier system of medical care into every surgery, and that such a system has been banished since
1948?

Mr. Roberts: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has
not listened to my remarks. It is our intention that the drugs list will cope with all clinical needs of
people within the Health Service.

Heath Hospital, Cardiff

Mr. Abse: asked the Secretary of State for Wales
why the details of the settlement between the Welsh Health Services Technical Organisation, S. W.
Milburn and Partners and W. S. Atkins and Partners pertaining to structural and material defects at the
Heath hospital, Cardiff, were not published at the time of the settlement; and if he will make a
statement.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): Yes, Sir. I intend to make a statement to the House
tomorrow.

Mr. Abse: So grave, in my judgment, is the breach
that the Secretary of State for Wales has committed against the House in this matter, that he could do
no other than reply that he will make a statement. But in the meantime, will the Secretary of State, having
presided over the most massive administrative blunder in the history of the Welsh Office, and being
known throughout Wales as Mr. "Nobody-tells-me-anything" Edwards, will he explain why, in a
parliamentary reply in May 1983, he denied me access to reports on the hospital on the ground that they
were relevant to litigation, and now admits that he so failed to monitor the chaos of that litigation that he
knew of the final settlement only by reading the South Wales Echo?
Why does the Secretary of State shamelessly seek to blame his own civil servants, including, of course,
Mr. Lloyd, his assistant principal secretary, who, on his behalf, signed the settlement? Even more
absurdly, why is the Secretary of State trying to blame a Labour Administration when it was in his
period of office that the decision had to be made whether to issue writs, and when all he did was to
issue a writ that was five days late?
Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Too long."]—since the Secretary of State clearly has
no control over his own Department, why does he not have the dignity to admit ministerial responsibility
and resign?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal for briefer questions,
otherwise we shall not get anywhere today.

Mr. Edwards: So many, so serious, so wild and so
inaccurate are the allegations that I think it best that I deal with them all in the statement tomorrow. The
hon. Gentleman is wrong in most of his allegations, including the allegation that the matter was out of
time.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend is to be
congratulated on the way that he has acted so typically quickly and completely correctly in the matter, in
obtaining a full disclosure of all the information.
Will my right hon. Friend consider telling the House, in his statement tomorrow, whether it would be
appropriate for the matter to be considered by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, as the important
point now is to ensure that it does not happen again?

Mr. Edwards: I would welcome the fullest possible
examination, becsause it is a story that covers many years, many organisations, many people, and
different Administrations. I believe that there are lessons to be learnt from it. I will accept my degree of
responsibility in the matter; I hope that others involved will accept theirs.

Mr. Williams: When he makes his statement, will the
Secretary of State explain how he reconciles the concept of ministerial responsibility with his statement
that he knew about the settlement only when he read about it last week in the newspapers? Will the right
hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the House will not accept as honourable a Cabinet Minister who tells
the House, "It is not my fault. My officials got it wrong."?

Mr. Edwards: I shall deal with those points in my
statement tomorrow. It might also be a good idea if at some point it could be decided whether it is right
that your rulings, Mr. Speaker, should appear for the first time not in the House but in the South
Wales Echo.

Mr. Barry Jones: In supporting what my right hon.
and hon. Friends have said, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether the legal proceedings
and writs involve any other major hospitals in the Principality? Has the right hon. Gentleman in any way
concealed the true cost of repairs at the Heath hospital? In his estimate of an outline cost of £4
million, in reply to a parliamentary question from me, did he leave out the cost of repairing the roofs?

Mr. Edwards: That £4 million figure is
absolutely correct and will be dealt with in my statement tomorrow. A writ was issued on 1 November
in respect of Ysbyty Gwynedd and a statement of claim is being prepared.

Cigarette Smoking

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales
what steps he has taken to discourage cigarette smoking (a)in his Department and (b)
amongst the general public in Wales since 1979.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: In addition to various nationwide
activities by the Government to discourage smoking, specific action in Wales includes the provision of
funds for


Action on Smoking and Health and the production of bilingual advice to retailers and schools to combat
smoking by children. Within the Welsh Office, certain no smoking areas are already designated and an
extension of them is being considered.

Mr. Grist: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the cost
in lives and to the Health Service in Wales of cardiac and respiratory diseases, let alone cancer? What
success is his campaign likely to have?

Mr. Roberts: Of course I hope that our campaign is
very successful in Wales. My hon. Friend is certainly right, in that many deaths and much of the
incidence of heart disease are due to smoking. Indeed, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my
hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security on 14 December 1984. It is
because of the relationship, particularly in Wales, between smoking and heart disease that the health
community in Wales welcomes the Welsh heart programme.

Mr. Soames: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that
such interference is absolutely intolerable? Although I accept that there is everything to be said for
educating children about smoking, will my hon. Friend accept that if adults wish to smoke,, that is
entirely up to them and has nothing to do with the state?

Mr. Roberts: No, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend.
There is a connection between smoking and disease. Although I am a smoker, I say so with regret, and
can only say video meliora proboque deteriora sequor.

Local Authorities (Capital Expenditure)

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Secretary of State
for Wales if he will ensure that Government measures to restrict capital expenditure by local authorities
in Wales take full account of the loss of assisted area status and of diminished access to European
Economic Community loans and grants.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: The Government measures
announced last December are restrictive only in the sense that they should ensure a much closer match
between local authorities' capital spending and the sum allowed for this in the Government's expenditure
plans than has been the case this year under the previous arrangements.

Sir Anthony Meyer: In the light of that reply, will my
right hon. Friend assure me that no local authority will find that its calculations on the availability of
capital for urban schemes or such like will be seriously affected by the unexpected withdrawal of
assisted area status, leading in turn to reduced ability to obtain, for example, loans from the European
Investment Bank?

Mr. Edwards: Capital allocations are now largely
determined by formulae agreed with the local authority associations. Urban programme applications are
considered individually on their merits. As I have already told my hon. Friend, we are considering
whether any further action is possible in connection with the European
Community.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the right hon. Gentleman
acknowledge that Government restrictions on capital expenditure have, to some extent, at least in
mid-Wales,

been counterbalanced by the successful activities of Mid-Wales Development? When shall we hear that
Mid-Wales Development is to have a substantially increased budget for the next financial year?

Mr. Edwards: I agree that Mid-Wales Development
has been doing extremely good work. For example, I welcome its contribution to the recent Laura
Ashley decision. The announcement about the budget will be made shortly. I cannot anticipate the
amount. but among other matters the Laura Ashley involvement will be properly taken into
account.

Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House
that local authorities' accumulated capital receipts will remain theirs to spend and that they will be spent
by the local authorities as soon as it is possible to remove the restrictions by the Government on that
spending?

Mr. Edwards: Yes. We have already said that we
intend local authorities to spend the money over a number of years rather than in a single year, since
many of them have already, in effect, used the money once by increasing their borrowing in the last year
or two. We shall have to spread the expenditure over more than a single
year.

Cynon Valley (Housing Survey)

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for Wales
what response he has made to the findings of the Cynon Valley housing
survey.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The 1981 Welsh house condition
survey had already made clear the poor condition of much of the housing in the south Wales valleys. As
the House well knows, the need for extensive renovation and repair lay behind the Government's recent
grants initiative. The particular situation in Cynon valley—as in all district council
areas—was taken into account when determining the housing capital expenditure
allocations.

Mrs. Clywd: I am afraid that the Minister has not
answered the question. On 24 January my council in the Cynon valley sent the Minister the house
condition survey of the valley, which that 48 per cent. of private housing is unfit for human habitation.
Will the Minister receive a deputation from the council and make additional resources available under
the capital programme, to come out of the housing improvement programme, to deal with the serious
and shocking housing conditions in the Cynon valley which without doubt are the worst in Wales and
probably the worst in the whole of Britain?

Mr. Roberts: I am already aware of the council's
request to send a deputation to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Consultative
mechanisms already exist for discussing such matters. It would be easier to be more sympathetic
Cynon valley if it had a better record of spending on renovating its private sector
stock.

Mr. Roy Hughes: When will the Government
recognise the need to build new houses in areas such as the Cynon valley, which has such massive
unemployment? Does the Minister agree that a housing drive would not only improve the infrastructure
at a stroke, but provide jobs where they are so vitally needed?

Mr. Roberts: It is for the local authorities to decide
their spending priorities within their allocations. There is a record spend on housing for
1984–85. Apart from


1983–84, when there was exceptionally high expenditure on improvement grants,
1984–85 is the subject of the highest forecast expenditure figure for housing in Wales over a
run of years going back to 1978–79.

River Dee (Pollution)

Dr. Marek: asked the Secretary of State for Wales
what steps are proposed to minimise the further risk of pollution of the River
Dee.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Improved monitoring introduced
following the pollution incident in January 1984 has enabled recent incidents to be detected in sufficient
time to prevent polluted water entering the public supply. A working group established by the statutory
water undertakers which abstract water from the Dee is considering the need for further measures, and
its report will be made public shortly.

Dr. Marek: I accept that the majority of companies
act responsibly after a pollution incident. However, does the Minister agree that, in the light of the
phenol incident last year, it would be desirable if there was an obligation on companies to notifiy the
water authority as soon as possible after any pollution incident?

Mr. Roberts: I am very glad to tell the hon.
Gentleman something that he may already know — that the last incident, when some melamine
was deposited in the river, was reported by the company of its own volition. I agree that when pollution
is even suspected it is highly desirable that any company associated with it or knowing anything about it
should report it to the relevant authority.

Mr. Raffan: Will my hon. Friend tell me how much
the voluntary system depends on the co-operation of local companies? Will he assure us that they can
all be relied upon to be as conscientious as Kronospan at Chirk?

Mr. Roberts: The procedures adopted after the first
phenol pollution incident in January 1984 have been very successful. Although there have been two
pollution incidents since then, the intakes of water from the Dee into the public supply system were
closed in time so that the pollutants did not enter the supply system. The water authorities and the
companies involved are to be congratulated on their prompt action after the phenol
incident.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is the Minister aware that the
Connahs Quay town council and the Alyn and Deeside district council still favour a public inquiry into
the phenol incident, which poisoned many thousands of my constituents? Is the hon. Gentleman further
aware that those who requested a public inquiry were told that a court case would ensue? It did not
ensue. People on Deeside are angry and astonished that there is not to be a public inquiry. May we have
one, please?

Mr. Roberts: We must ask ourselves whether a public
inquiry would serve any useful purpose, and I believe that the answer to that is no. Following the phenol
incident, the chief executives of the authorities and the companies concerned set up, their own inquiry
and instituted remedial action. In addition, something known as the Dee working group was set up and it
will be reporting shortly. When the report is published, I hope that Opposition Members will give it as
much publicity as they can so that consumers' fears are allayed.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for
Wales how many people are unemployed in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales compared with
1979, as a total and as a percentage; and, of the total unemployed, how many are long-term
unemployed.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 10 January 1985 there
were 25,105 unemployed claimants in Clwyd. A comparable claimant-based figure for 1979 is not
available. The figure for registered unemployed in January 1979 was 13,569. For Wales as a whole, for
the same dates, the figures on a claimant-basis calculation were 185,529 and 86,416 respectively, an
increase of 114·7 per cent. The latest figures for the long-term unemployed relate to January
1985, when 75,697 had been unemployed in Wales for over one year.

Mr. Jones: In the light of those quite disparate figures,
will the right hon. Gentleman seek an emergency jobs package from his Cabinet colleagues? Will not his
tenure of office be remembered as terribly destructive to manufacturing industries in Wales? With more
than one in five men in Wales jobless, and growing social and economic problems ensuing from those
policies, is not the right hon. Gentleman's record the worst of any Secretary of State for Wales?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that
we are spending about £2 billion on employment and special training measures, and that more
than 41,000 people in Wales were covered by those measures at the end of December 1984. There is
also a massive capital programme in Wales. I am glad to say that, as a result of the activities of the
agencies and other Government initiatives, a large quantity of new investment is being made, much of it
in Clwyd, which has been outstandingly successful in attracting new projects which are building their
labour forces.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware
that the process of finding badly needed new jobs in Clwyd would have begun much earlier and been
much more successful had it not been for pressure from both sides of the House to delay the closure of
the steelworks at Shotton?

Mr. Edwards: The problems of the steel industry
were undoubtedly magnified by the fact that essential decisions were not taken earlier. But hon.
Members on both sides of the House must welcome the way in which the Welsh steel industry has
faced competition during the past two or three years and made itself outstandingly
successful.

Mr. Foot: In view of those terrible figures —
the worst in Wales, at any rate since the 1930s—will the Secretary of State take into account the
fact that he has added insult to grievous injury by telling me in a letter that the cut in regional aid will
assist in creating employment? When will the cut have that beneficial effect, and what will be its precise
effect in the areas deprived of special development status?

Mr. Edwards: We believe that the new regional
scheme will be more beneficial and cost-effective than the previous scheme. There will be no cut in
regional expenditure in Wales during the next couple of years; the reduction will come only after that.
The area which the


right hon. Gentleman represents retains the highest level of assistance under the new scheme and is in an
especially good position to compete.

Mr. Grist: Does my right hon. Friend agree that major
contributors to unemployment are political strikes and real pay rates increasing faster than
productivity?

Mr. Edwards: Political strikes are undoubtedly
especially damaging, although it must be said that any industrial dispute may threaten jobs. I hope that
the unhappy dispute now taking place in Merthyr will be brought to an end, because we all hope that the
new investment being committed for the Hoover plant there will go ahead and that the future of that
plant will be safeguarded.

Mr. Rowlands: This is a civil question, and I hope
that I shall receive a civil answer from the Secretary of State. When does he expect the figures for
unemployment, in percentage and number terms, to return to the figures for May 1979?

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly
well that no Minister in any Administration has ever made such a forecast. It would be foolish to do
so.

Council House Sales

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales
how many council houses have been sold to sitting tenants in Wales since May
1979.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: A total of 39,432 council
dwellings were sold to sitting tenants in Wales between May 1979 and 30 September 1984. In addition,
2,292 dwellings were sold by the Cwmbran Development Corporation and Mid-Wales
Development.

Mr. Knox: How do those figures relate to right-to-buy
applications?

Mr. Roberts: There were more than 60,000
right-to-buy applications to Welsh local authorities. In addition, more than 3,000 applications were
received from tenants of Mid-Wales Development and the Cwmbran Development Corporation. At the
end of September 1984, sales represented about 59 per cent. of right-to-buy applications and about 88
per cent. of live applications. Offer notices have been issued to about 88 per cent. of
applicants.

Mr. Anderson: The Minister, in response to an earlier
question, ingenuously said that housing expenditure this year was the highest since 1978–79,
thus comparing expenditure with years of Conservative control only. Does he not feel some shame at
the fact that sales of council houses have gone ahead at a time when house building in both the public
and private sectors has slumped terribly under this Government and when the property that is being
sold is not being replaced?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman knows only too
well that sales of council houses to sitting tenants do not decrease the housing stock. The secure
tenants who have bought would have remained as tenants had they not become owners. There is no
doubt that sales of council houses have resulted in considerable receipts for local authorities, and those
receipts have been spent on improving older properties. The Government's policy has been extremely
successful both in increasing home ownership and in improving the housing
stock.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that
the principles of the right-to-buy legislation are being extended fairly to all tenants of houses owned by
county councils in Wales?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend will know that the
Housing and Building Control Act 1984 extended the right to buy to groups of tenants who did not
previously qualify, including some county council tenants. The Act increased the maximum discount to
60 per cent. and introduced the right to buy on a shared ownership basis. I am satisfied with the
implementation of the Act.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that one
result of the sale of council houses is that district councils have been supplying large sums of money by
way of mortgages? If so, will he explain why the Welsh Office is dictating to district councils what they
can do with the mortgages? As the mortgages are the assets of the district councils, they should be
allowed to use them as such.

Mr. Roberts: Local authorities have been lending
money for the purchase of council houses. That is a right that tenants have under the right-to-buy
legislation. It is entirely for the local authorities to decide what they will do with the mortgage books. If
they choose, as many have, to sell the books to the private sector, I see no objection to
that.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for
Wales what are the male, female, youth and total unemployment rates for Mid-Glamorgan for the latest
available date.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 10 January 1985 in
Mid-Glamorgan there were 26,264 males unemployed, a rate of 23·3 per cent., 9,884 females
or 13·1 per cent., giving a total of 36,148, or a rate of 19·2 per cent. The number of
unemployed youngsters between 16 and 19 in October 1984 totalled 7,800 or 4·1 per
cent.

Mr. Davies: First, may I suggest to the Secretary of
State that he has a word with the chairman of British Rail? I am sure that British Rail could reduce the
unemployment figures by employing a few extra linesmen to hasten the unfreezing process for the
HS125 service from Cardiff to London.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the figures that he has recited reflect the fact that in
Mid-Glamorgan there are 37 unemployed adults for every vacancy that exists? Will he also confirm that
in the Rhymney Valley 1,500 young people are searching for jobs and that on 10 January there was not
one vacancy? How will the cut of £60 million in regional aid solve the problem?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that hon. Members on both
sides of the House would wish to express regret at the death of some linesmen on British Rail last night
in a sad and unhappy accident, and I take this opportunity to do so.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman at least welcomes the fact that there has been a substantial reduction
in the number of unemployed school leavers in Wales, including Mid-Glamorgan. I am sure also that the
hon. Gentleman is pleased that again Wales has had the highest success rate in Great Britain in finding
youth training scheme places. We have met the Christmas undertaking. Only 77 minimum-age school
leavers had not received an offer of a place at the time that undertaking
concluded.

Mrs. Clwyd: However much the Secretary of State
tries to sugar the pill, the fact is that Wales has suffered a massive cut in regional aid. My constituency
is again at the top of the league table with 27·7 per cent. male unemployment—the
highest unemployment rate in the whole of Wales. The only things that the Secretary of State can offer
are factories such as Hitachi which encourages people at the age of 35 to become redundant. The
National Coal Board plans to shut at least one pit in my constituency. What hope can the Secretary of
State offer to those men in my constituency who, under this Government, have only long-term
unemployment to which to look forward?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that the hon. Lady welcomes
the fact that her constituency receives the maximum assistance under the new regional policy scheme. I
am sure that she also welcomes the fact that there is no blockage of an area with an even higher level of
assistance further to the east. I am surprised at the suggestion implicit in the hon. Lady's question, that
she was somehow running down the jobs provided by firms such as Hitachi, which provide not only
jobs but a degree of technical innovation and standard of management which are likely to improve job
prospects generally.

Mr. Barry Jones: The right hon. Gentleman has cited
statistics which depict the daunting problems of our valley communities. Why, therefore, do the
Government propose to close skillcentres in South Wales? Since the Scottish local authority member of
the MSC has resiled from his support for closure, the Secretary of State now has the excuse to go to
the Cabinet and say that the skillcentre at, for example, Pontllanfraith should not close. Will the right
hon. Gentleman do that?

Mr. Edwards: Part of the MSC's programme is to
extend and enlarge the training programme, and to provide in a more flexible way, more, not fewer,
training places in Wales. The MSC has recently put specific proposals to Ministers, which are being
considered.

East Dyfed Health Authority

Dr. Roger Thomas: asked the Secretary of State
for Wales if he will provide additional finances to the East Dyfed health authority to enable the
completed intensive care unit to receive patients.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: No, Sir. East Dyfed health
authority is responsible for the revenue cost of running the intensive care
unit.

Dr. Thomas: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware of
the deep outrage felt in that area, especially as almost one third of the money for the capital cost of that
unit came from the public and recently the unit has been lucky enough to have a consultant
cardiologist?

Mr. Roberts: If there is a sense of outrage, I am
afraid that it reflects on the East Dyfed health authority, because the authority should not have embarked
upon the unit until it was sure that it had the money to run it. I am aware that, of the total capital cost of
£341,000, some £54,000 was raised from voluntary sources locally and
£287,000 came from the district health authority. As I understand it, the authority is waiting for
some savings to be made. It is to be hoped that the unit will be opened in the not-too-distant
future.

Nuclear Burst

Dr. Twinn: asked the Secretary of State for Wales
what effect a megaton nuclear burst at a height of 300 miles overhead would have on the equipment and
resources in his charge.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am advised that there would
be no physical damage by blast, shock or heat, but that the electromagnetic pulse produced could
cause damage to unprotected electrical and electronic equipment over a wide
area.

Dr. Twinn: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that
his Department will be studying the effects of electromagnetic pulses, and will he ensure that the civil
defence authorities in Wales have that information and are able to plan effectively with it?

Mr. Edwards: My right hon. and learned Friend the
Secretary of State for the Home Department is responsible for these matters and for giving that kind of
advice, and I shall draw his attention to my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Buchan: Does not the description of the
electromagnetic effect on Wales bear a startling resemblance to the Government's effect on the country
at large?

Mr. Edwards: I am not sure that that arises from the
question that I have answered.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for
Wales what were the male unemployment figures in Swansea at the latest available date; and what were
the figures for the equivalent months since 1978.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 10 January 1985 the male
unemployment figure for the Swansea travel-to-work area was 13,816. Comparable figures for earlier
years are not available because of changes to travel-to-work area boundaries and the move to
claimant-based figures.

Mr. Anderson: Have not male unemployment figures
in the Swansea area increased by roughly three times since 1979, when they stood at about 8 per cent.?
They are now almost 23 per cent. Does the Secretary of State recall that when he was Opposition
spokesman there was a large advertisement in Swansea in 1979 which read, "Labour is not working"? Is
he not now ashamed of the con trick which over the years has led to three times the male unemployment
of 1979?

Mr. Edwards: We must all be anxious about rising
unemployment. The hon. Gentleman was no doubt worried when it rose steeply under the Labour
Administration that he supported. He will be aware that we have been taking a number of measures,
particularly in his constituency, to attract new investment and jobs. There have been notable successes
through the urban programme in regenerating the lower Swansea Valley, and the enterprise zone there is
proving a considerable success.

Nuclear Burst

Mr. Gerald Bowden: asked the Secretary of State
for Wales what action he is taking to harden vulnerable equipment in his charge against the effects of
nuclear electromagnetic pulse.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: None,
Sir.

Mr. Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that
adequate places are available on training courses so that those who need to know about the effects of
the nuclear electromagnetic pulse can learn, study and make provision for such an emergency?

Mr. Edwards: Once again, that is a matter for my
right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I shall draw that suggestion to his
attention.

Mr. Best: Will my right hon. Friend deprecate the
decisions of some county councils in Wales, under whose charge the citizens are placed in the event of
such a catastrophe occurring, not to involve themselves fully in civil defence matters? Will he also
remind the House that a unilateral declaration that Wales is a nuclear-free zone is not of much use unless
the Kremlin agrees to it as well?

Mr. Edwards: I agree entirely with what my hon.
Friend says. I believe that it is of great importance that we should pursue civil defence measures. My
Department will continue to give every possible encouragement to the activities of those involved to
ensure that proper civil defence arrangements are made.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for
Wales what was the total number of unemployed in Wales in 1979 and at the latest date; and what is the
change, expressed as a percentage of the 1979 figure.

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for
Wales what is the total number of males and females unemployed in Wales at the latest date for which
figures are available; how many were unemployed in May 1979; and what, in percentage terms, is the
difference.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: On 10 January 1985 total
unemployment in Wales was 185,529, comprising 131,720 males and 53,809 females. In May 1979 the
equivalent figures were 77,200, 55,800, and 21,400, respectively—an increase of
140·3, 136·1 and 151·4 per cent.

Mr. Hughes: In relation to those disgraceful figures,
has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to the article in the Financial Times this
morning, which said that the Japanese Honda company had acquired a huge 330-acre site in Swindon
for the development of an engine plant and full car production? Does he appreciate the anxiety that that
has caused throughout British Leyland's ranks? If that project is to go ahead, will he ensure that the
Government have the necessary powers to see that that plant comes to South Wales; or is he prepared
to see the further rundown of our communities?

Mr. Edwards: I have, of course, seen this morning's
press reports. I am aware that Honda has taken a site at Swindon, where it intends to carry out
pre-delivery inspection of cars manufactured jointly with BL as well as perhaps producing certain
components. No proposal for a major car assembly facility has been put to the Government by Honda.
If such a proposal were advanced, we should clearly have to consider it carefully and judge whether
mutually acceptable arrangements to benefit the United Kingdom as a whole could be worked
out.

AIDS

Sir Raymond Gower: asked the Secretary of State
for Wales what recent representations he has received asking him to take early steps to make acquired
immune deficiency syndrome a notifiable disease in Wales.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I have not received any
representations on this matter.

Sir Raymond Gower: Does my hon. Friend agree that
information from other countries, including the United States and Australia, shows that there is a
terrifying possibility that this disease will spread? Does he also agree that there is probably far too much
complacency about the matter in this country?

Mr. Roberts: The Government are certainly not
complacent. We are very concerned, but the consensus of the DHSS expert advisory group on AIDS is
that there are, as yet, no clinical grounds to support making AIDS a notifiable disease. However, the
point is very much under consideration. While appreciating the gravity of the problem, we are anxious
not to cause unnecessary panic.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE ARTS

National Theatre

Mr. Freud: asked the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what representations Her Majesty's
Government have had regarding future funding for the National Theatre; and if he will make a
statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): My noble Friend had a case put to him and discussed
it with the theatre's chairman; but it is for the Arts Council to decide the level of
funding.

Mr. Freud: Will the hon. Gentleman persuade his
noble Friend to look at separate funding for the National Theatre building, in the way that the National
Gallery and the British Museum are separately funded, and thus allow the National Theatre to continue
to produce plays of excellence and to collect seven-figure sums in VAT for the Treasury?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is one point which I am sure
Sir Peter Hall put to my noble Friend. If it means that, from one source or another, more money is to be
spent on the National Theatre, that will have to be met out of the budget
somehow.

Mr. Jessel: Does my hon. Friend agree that the
superb and brillant standards of acting and production at the National Theatre do not always require
quite such lavish sets and costumes and extras as they sometimes receive? Does he agree also that it is
not self-evident why a cut of one fiftieth in real terms in the grant should lead to the closure of the
Cottesloe Theatre and the sacking of 100 people? Is Sir Peter Hall sacrificing his staff to make a
point?

Mr. Waldegrave: I saw a suggeston in an article by
Michael Ratcliffe at the weekend that Sir Peter Hall might be closing the Cottesloe to make the
maximum stink. I doubt whether that is so. We must remember that the National Theatre has had an
increase in its budget from the


Arts Council since 1979 of a little more than the inflation rate. Therefore, it should be able to live within
those figures.

Mr. Foot: What is the use of having a great and
adventurous National Theatre and a Cabinet of barbarians? Cannot we get rid of the second instead of
the first?

Mr. Waldegrave: One of the things that soon gets lost
in any discussion of money for the arts is relevance to reality. The right hon. Gentleman has given us
another example of that. There has been an 18 per cent. real increase in Government spending on the
arts since 1978–79, and that is not a record of which to be
ashamed.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As my hon. Friend is a
distinguished hon. Member and not only not a barbarian, but a Fellow of All Souls, would he care to
essay an answer to Machiavelli's question, "What good is power without glory?" Is not the National
Theatre one of our greatest glories? I appointed an independent commission to examine the financing of
the Victoria and Albert Museum and my successor appointed an independent commission to examine
the financing of the Royal Opera House. Could not my hon. Friend do the same for the National
Theatre and give satisfaction all round?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend
for his kind words. Certainly we need the glory, but, as the Arts Council has said, perhaps the glory
needs to be spread around the country. That is one reson why some pressure has been brought to bear
on the London companies. I believe that an investigation by the National Theatre is already in train. We
hope that when other ways of raising money have been examined, the Cottesloe will still be
open.

Mr. Meadowcroft: If the Minister believes that Sir
Peter Hall is not closing the Cottesloe to make a point, presumably he accepts that it was inexorable that
its closure would follow the level of grant given?

Mr. Waldegrave: No, I do not think that that
necessarily follows. There must be a whole range of things to which the National Theatre and other
companies can look. For example, it is always taken that the level of pay is given in all those matters. I
am not sure whether that should be accepted without question.

Mr. Hannam: Does my hon. Friend accept that the
investigation by Lord Rayner has already corroborated the need to close the Cottesloe Theatre so that
the National Theatre can survive the cuts that are taking place? Does he agree that the Arts Council's
reduction in the amount that should have gone to the National Theatre as a result of its policy of taking
the arts out to the regions will kill off the main trunk that is necessary to sustain the arts?

Mr. Waldegrave: With respect to my hon. Friend, I
think that we must keep some sense of proportion. The National Theatre will still get a larger grant
— it is a considerably larger amount — than that of any other theatre company in the
country. I believe that just under £7 million in subsidy to the National Theatre is not unfair
when taken with the fact that there has been a real increase in its funding since
1978–79.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: If the Cottesloe closes, the
Minister's noble Friend will be the first Minister for the Arts to be responsible for shutting rather than
opening a theatre that is the subject of public funds Is that not a

disgraceful turn of events? Will the hon. Gentleman report to those responsible how the House feels
about the matter, and bring about a change in policy?

Mr. Waldegrave: My noble Friend is no more
responsible for closing the Cottesloe Theatre than he is for the superlative performance of "Guys and
Dolls" which National Theatre put on this year. Those are matters for the management of the theatre, in
conjunction with the Arts Council.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that the
quality of Sir Peter Hall's work has always been excellent and stimulating? However, does he agree that
the National Theatre is receiving a subidy of nearly £7 million a year, and that Sir Peter Hall
should be able to cut his coat according to that cloth?

Mr. Waldegrave: Sir Peter Hall's work has always
been adventurous and always on a large scale. The successes have been on a large scale and sometimes
the failures have also been on a large scale, as we saw with "Jean Seberg". The whole purpose is to be
adventurous. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that with such a scale of financing it is possible to
produce good theatre in the centre of London.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that there is a
link between the low level of settlement which the Government made on the Arts Council this year, rate
capping and the abolition of the Greater London council? When will he become alarmed and worried,
and indeed honest, and admit that the Government have betrayed the arts?

Mr. Waldegrave: There is no relationship between
those things. The hon. Gentleman may have noticed that the GLC has not yet been abolished,
unfortunately; and it may be of interest for him to know that the Arts Council's funding for the National
Theatre has increased a little faster than the GLC's funding for the National Theatre since the Labour
party took over the GLC.

Mr. Buchan: The Minister must not rest on this
business of the amount of money being given to the National Theatre. It is not one theatre, but three. It
has been bequeathed an extremely costly building at over £2 million. Is not the truth simply
that, not content with running down our manufacturing and coal industries and, for that matter, the
pound, the Government are equally complacent about running down one of our national glories? If we
have any respect left in the world under the Government, it is with regard to our National Theatre. Will
the hon. Gentleman bring the matter back to the Cabinet? He might remind the Prime Minister that the
last major play put on at the National Theatre was about Coriolanus, who was not totally dissimilar,
apart from his unfortunate predeliction for compassion now and again. The hon. Gentleman might show
the same in relation to the arts.

Mr. Waldegrave: I shall not venture into arguments
about Coriolanus with the hon. Gentleman. We must remember that funding for the arts has increased
sharply since 1978–79—by 18 per cent. in real terms. There has been a real terms
increase this year as well.

Public Libraries

Mr. Fisher: asked the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what representations Her Majesty's
Government have received on his planned expenditure on public libraries in
1985–86.

Mr. Waldegrave: None,
Sir.

Mr. Fisher: Is the Minister aware that the public
expenditure White Paper shows a real decrease of £55 million in Government expenditure on
libraries next year? Is he further aware that that decrease is forcing library authorities throughout the
country to cut services, that Somerset has had to abandon all spending on adult fiction, and that the
Highlands and Islands have had to reduce their book fund by 82 per cent? What does he intend to do
about that? Does he perhaps think that libraries were overfunded this year and thus require a decrease
next year?

Mr. Waldegrave: Since 1978–79 there has
been a reduction of only 1 per cent. in the number of people employed in the public library service. My
noble Friend is satisfied that the level of provision is adequate, although no doubt there are hard choices
to be made in individual instances.

The Arts (Private Sector Funds)

Mr. Proctor: asked the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State answering in respect of the Arts what representations he has received with
regard to tax advantages to private sector fenders of the arts.

Mr. Waldegrave: My noble Friend the Minister for the
Arts has received some letters from the National Federation of Playgoers' Societies advocating further
tax concessions. The question of tax reliefs for the arts continues to be kept under
review.

Mr. Proctor: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is
continuing concern about the activities of the Inland Revenue special unit at Bristol, which tends to
depress available private sponsorship for the arts? Is he further aware that the Association for Business
Sponsorship of the Arts is currently collecting representations from its members and that a document
prepared by leading accountants will be in the Minister's hands in April? Will he give that document and
those representations the most careful consideration?

Mr. Waldegrave: I was aware that ABSA was looking
into this, and I will take seriously any representations submitted by it, although I am not aware of any
evidence that the Inland Revenue has changed or tightened its rules in this
area.

Oral Answers to Questions — Mr. Speaker's Letters to Members

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker.
The Secretary of State for Wales, whose capacity for getting things wrong seems to be unlimited, said
in a supplementary answer at Question Time that it was improper that your ruling on a recent application
in relation to contempt was read in a newspaper before it was heard on the Floor of the House or
notified to the House. As this is an important matter perhaps you, Mr. Speaker, will confirm for the
record that you told me that you would rule out of order any attempt to raise the matter on the Floor of
the House but that I was perfectly free to make the contents of your letter known to whomever I
wished, although the releasing of the letter was a matter that you wished to consider. Will you confirm
that you are currently considering the question of the confidentiality of Mr. Speaker's rulings given in
letters to Members?

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is quite
correct. I am considering the extent to which letters from me to right hon. and hon. Members could be
released to the press. Clearly, I cannot give a blanket agreement to all my letters being released, but I am
looking at the matter and I will be in communication with the right hon.
Gentleman.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Perhaps you will also consider whether it is good practice for a Member to approach you to inquire
about a possible breach of privilege involving another Member without that other Member being in any
way involved in the approach and for that other Member to read about the matter in a newspaper in
which your letter is published in full under the headline, "Edwards Secrecy Contempt Warning," as that
does not seem to me to be a very satisfactory way to proceed.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know the date on which that
article appeared.

Mr. Edwards: It was on 5
February.

Mr. Speaker: Last Tuesday. I think that puts into
perspective my comments about my letters having wide distribution in the press. I am considering the
matter. Clearly, my public rulings are available to everyone, but private letters to Members should
perhaps not be quite so public.

Haringey Borough Council

Dr. John Cunningham(by private notice): asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he
will make a statement about meetings and other contacts between his Department and Councillor
Salinger or other councillors of Haringey borough council and the disclosure to Councillor Salinger of
the Secretary of State's assumptions under the Rates Act about the finances of the borough
council.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): There has been no impropriety. The Guardian
headlines are flatly wrong in suggesting either that Councillor Salinger has been
given information refused to Councils
or that I misled the House.
The majority parties in the rate-limited authorities are refusing to negotiate with the Government about
their rate limits. I have made it absolutely clear that in those circumstances I am
prepared—indeed, legally bound—to take account of information from elsewhere,
including of course from elected councillors, of whatever party. It was in that context that one of my
officials telephoned Councillor Salinger on 5 February because he understood that Councillor Salinger
might have relevant factual information to provide. In Haringey's case I have not needed to make any
assumptions, as all the figures required to calculate its rate limit have been supplied to me at various
times by the council itself. The suggestion that I have privately revealed assumptions made in calculating
Haringey's rate limit is, therefore, entirely false.
There have been meetings between Ministers or their special advisers and Conservative Members of
Haringey council. One of the meetings was attended by officials, who, in accordance with the normal
conventions of such meetings, recorded factual information and commented on its technical
relevance.

Dr. Cunningham: The Secretary of State's statement
is singularly unconvincing. Will he confirm that Councillor Salinger has confirmed that there were
discussions with officials of the right hon. Gentleman's Department about the assumptions and has
clearly stated that the assumptions were given to him at an open meeting of the borough council?
Did not the Secretary of State tell the House as recently as last Wednesday that there had been no
contact between his Department and Conservative councillors on the borough council? That is on the
record. Why has the Secretary of State not taken this opportunity to put the record straight and to be
candid with the House about his dealings with minority group councillors in an attempt to bypass the
decisions of the ballot box at Haringey?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the figures given in The Guardian and in the letter of the
chief accountant of Haringey borough council?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a question, not a
statement.

Dr. Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman
confirm that in exercising his discretion in this matter he has capriciously withheld
£6·4 million from Haringey borough council? Does not the whole sorry affair
demonstrate the fact that the punitive centralizing

legislation is a mess, and that fixing the budgets of councils, is no business of the House or of the right
hon. Gentleman's Department?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman continues to make a
very bad case. He should accept that I have made no assumptions whatever in relation to Haringey. The
council gave me all the figures necessary to enable me to calculate its rate limit. The accusation made in
the House last week was that I told Conservative members of Haringey council of assumptions made in
calculating the Haringey limit.

Dr. Cunningham: The right hon. Gentleman's
Department told them.

Mr. Jenkin: No. What I said in the House was
absolutely correct. Indeed, I went on to say that had there been any meeting with officials at which such
assumptions had been disclosed—

Dr. Cunningham: They have
been.

Mr. Jenkin: No, they have not. I have made no
assumptions in relation to Haringey. In suggesting that if an elected councillor chooses to contact a
Government Department that is bypassing the ballot box, the hon. Gentleman is carrying the argument
to absurd lengths.
We all know what the hon. Gentleman is up to. It is spelt out in The Guardian. The hon.
Gentleman and the councils which he supports are trying to demonstrate that the assumptions are
unreasonable, so that I can be beaten in the courts and the whole rate-capping policy reduced to tatters.
That is what he says, that is what he is after and that is what this is all
about.

Sir Hugh Rossi: Is my right hon. Friend aware that
Haringey is one of the most extravagant and profligate local authorities in the United Kingdom, with
expenditure running at 34 per cent. above GRE; that for the past 12 years both Labour and
Conservative Secretaries of States alike have drawn attention to the council's spending policy but that it
has refused to heed any of them; and that currently it is more concerned with an expensive advertising
campaign and confrontation with the Government — with the encouragement of the Opposition
Front Bench—than with trying to bring about economies in expenditure? Is he also aware that
my constituents and ratepayers will welcome and endorse anything that he does to reduce the intolerable
burden at present upon them?

Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I
may say so, this is all a very sad falling away from the days when he and I served on Hornsey borough
council, Haringey's predessor.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will
the Secretary of State acknowledge that the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for
Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) is precisely the same as his remarks to justify his call to the
Haringey authority to dismiss some 2,200 of its workers from service? The hon. Gentleman stands
condemned for demanding that of the local authority.
Is it not the explanation for all these revelations much more politically sinister than the Secretary of State
makes out? Has not the right hon. Gentleman indeed made a number of assumptions? He quoted the
figure of £6·4 million, which was one of his assumptions and which


appears in the correspondence. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is condemned by his own
correspondence with the local authority.
Is not this part of a political strategy? The Secretary of State knows that all the rate-capped authorities
have agreed to act in unison. The right hon. Gentleman wanted Haringey to come to see him personally
and he would then have conceded the £6·4 million, thereby making it beneficial for
those authorities to come to see him, and as a result breaking the
unity—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have speeches during
questions on a statement. The hon. Gentleman must bring his question to a close, because he has now
been on his feet for several minutes.

Mr. Atkinson: Is not a political strategy the purpose
of these "behind the scenes" discussions with friends of the right hon. Gentleman's own family whom
he has known for many years? Was it not from out-of-hours discussions that these revelations
emerged?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman knows that the leader
of Haringey council, Councillor Meehan, has consistently argued that he ought to be free to talk to the
Department about the rate limit, but that because of this stupid boycott imposed by Labour's national
executive committee he has been precluded from doing so. There is still time, and if Councillor Meehan
wishes to argue for a higher rate limit, my door is open.

Mr. John Cartwright: Will the
right hon. Gentleman confirm the statement apparently issued by his Department on Friday that the
deputy treasurer of Haringey telephoned his Department and had certain calculations confirmed? Will he
make a similar service available to the other rate-capped authorities? More important, will he make
available to the House details of the assumptions which he has used so that we do not have a repetition
of last week, when the House was asked to rubber stamp rate limits without adequate information?

Mr. Jenkin: I have made it clear that in relation to
Haringey there were no assumptions. If any authority wishes to discuss the calculation of its rate limit, it
is absolutely clear under the Act that it should use the right of appeal to come in and put forward an
alternative rate limit. These matters may then be discussed. The deputy treasurer of Haringey did have a
consultation, and, as I have said frequently, skilled treasurers are perfectly well able to work out how
their authority's rate limit has been calculated. Haringey got the relevant calculations right within two
days of the announcement last December.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Private notice questions are an
extension of Question Time. We have a heavy day ahead of us, with Private Members'
motions.

Mr. Clive Ponting (Trial)

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It may be of assistance to
the House if I say now that it is the Government's intention for an oral statement to be made tomorrow
concerning the Ponting case.

Mr. John Morris: Further
to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for me to make an application under Standing
Order No. 10 at this stage? If not, at what stage would it be appropriate?

Mr. Speaker: Not until after the
statements.

Mr. Morris: In that case, I give notice that I intend to
do so.

Mr. Speaker: I say to the right hon. and learned
Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and other right hon. and hon. Members who have given notice of
Standing Order No. 10 applications that this is a private Members' day, and we already have two
statements and two other applications under Standing Order No. 10 that came in before 12 o'clock. I
appreciate that the judgment in the Ponting case was not received until after noon, so it might be
appropriate to delay further applications under Standing Order No. 10 until tomorrow, in the interests of
private Members.

Mr. Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr.
Speaker. It is my intention, as I have given notice, to move my application today because the earliest
that we could have a debate, as opposed to a statement, would be
tomorrow.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As many hon. Members will not even have heard the verdict
in the Ponting case as yet, and as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has given an
undertaking that there is to be a statement tomorrow, would it not be reasonable for hon. Members to
read and reflect on the verdict before we have a discussion in the House?

Mr. Speaker: I have not heard the details either, so I
am as much in the dark as anybody else.

Dr. David Owen: Further to that point of order,
Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the House has raised this point of order, would it be in order to ask him
which Minister will make the statement? Will it be the Prime Minister, in view of her responsibilities as
head of the Civil Service? Can it be made clear to the Government that many of us feel that, as the
Prime Minister has misled the House, she should make the statement?

Mr. Biffen: Further to that point of order, Mr.
Speaker. The purpose of my point of order was to inform the House that a statement would be made at
the earliest possible opportunity. I shall take account of what right hon. and hon. Members have
said.

Sleipner Gas

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the proposed purchase of gas from the
Norwegian Sleipner field.
As the House is aware, major negotiations have been in progress for some time between the British Gas
Corporation and the licensees of this gas field, which has reserves of some 7 trillion cubic feet, for
supply of gas to the British market. Any deal resulting from the negotiations required the endorsement
of Her Majesty's Government, and I had made this clear to the parties concerned.
The British Gas Corporation approached me during 1984 with the terms of a provisional agreement
under which delivery of gas would start in the early 1990s, reaching a plateau in the mid-1990s at a rate
which would be sufficient to meet up to 30 per cent. of United Kingdom requirements and continuing at
that level well into the 21st century. The Government immediately examined the details of the contract
from the point of view of the broader national interest and thereafter entered into discussions with the
Norwegian Government. We explained to the Norwegians that, at the rate of delivery proposed, there
was a serious risk that prospective development of gasfields on the United Kingdom continental shelf
would be held up. We accordingly sought agreement that the rate of delivery provided for in the draft
contract should be reduced. Discussions with the Norwegians on this and other matters continued
throughout the remainder of 1984 and good progress was made.
The Government have now reviewed the proposed purchase in the light of the situation which has
developed during the period of these discussions. In particular, the Government have been impressed
by the results of the recent record levels of exploration and appraisal activity. As a result the estimates
of proven and probable gas reserves remaining in the United Kingdom continental shelf, as shown in the
Brown Book published in April 1984, have increased by 6·2 trillion cubic feet. As a
consequence the Government have concluded that it will no longer be necessary to import gas in the
1990s on the scale anticipated even last summer. Accordingly, the Government have decided not to
endorse the draft contract negotiated by the British Gas Corporation for the purchase of gas from the
Sleipner field. The Norwegian Government and the British Gas Corporation have been informed of this
decision. We recognise that the Governnent's decision will cause disappointment to our Norwegian
friends. I emphasise that we shall continue to value the relationship which has developed between our
two countries through our common interest in oil and gas matters.
The Government welcome the fact that current and prospective developments on the United Kingdom
continental shelf now seem likely to provide sufficient gas to meet the needs of the British market well
into the 1990s. However, they recognise that the British Gas Corporation has clear obligations in regard
to the security of gas supply. The Government, in consultation with the corporation, will therefore keep
under review the likely availability of supplies to meet demand in the coming decades.
The improved prospects for the development of our own offshore gasfields over the next few years will
have important and welcome implications for the generation of additional orders and employment in the
offshore supplies industry as well as reducing expenditure on imports in the
1990s.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The statement begs as many questions
as it answers. Above all, I find it astonishing that the Secretary of State has made no mention of price.
He has based his decision on a major revision of North sea gas reserves. The question is not just about
the size of the reserves but whether they can be developed to meet gas demands in the 1990s.
In recent reviews it was assessed that 45 new fields could be developed between now and the year
2000, providing North sea related jobs, but that that would still leave a significant gap between supply
and demand. Will the Secretary of State tell us which additional fields he has identified to fill that gap?

In view of the potential demand for gas in the 1990s, will the Secretary of State at least confirm that
British Gas will be allowed to consider importing gas in the future if it finds that it has insufficient
supplies?
The Secretary of State mentioned the discussions with the Norwegian Government. I hope that the
decision will not damage our good relations with Norway. Will he make it absolutely clear that there will
now be no question of exporting North sea gas from Britain?
With regard to the future of gas, will the Secretary of State say whether supplies from the North sea will
be significantly cheaper than those offered under the Sleipner contract?
What role has the collapse of the pound played in the Government's decision?
The Secretary of State has taken a risk and a gamble on the nation's future gas supplies. The House
deserves a much fuller assessment than he has included in his statement. Will he provide it as urgently
as possible, so that the House can make a proper judgment as to the extent of the gamble?

Mr. Walker: I understand the views put by the right
hon. Gentleman. I understand his fears about supplies, as he does not have the updated detailed
information. We shall be making that detailed information available to the Select Committee in the very
near future, so it will be available to the House, and the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members
can then make their judgments on the validity of the improvement in the supply position. It is a genuine
improvement and a pleasing one for both sides of the House. Some people think that we are still
underestimating the supplies that will be available during the period concerned, but we have made our
estimates in accordance with the usual prudent methods employed by the Department, under all
Governments.
With regard to price, if we are talking about the price of deliveries in 10 years' time, obviously the
exchange rates then prevailing will have an enormous influence. The variation in the currency exchange
rate during the period since the contract was originally negotiated shows the degree to which, if the
dollar is strong at a particular time, it produces a big variation in the price.
In looking at the availability of our own supplies, as opposed to the need to import them from Norway,
my guess is that the availability of our own supplies will mean


that prices will be lower than they would have been if we had taken the Sleipner
contract—[Interruption.] There is no way in which one can make a valid pronouncement
on that. However, that is my genuine guess about the position.
As I made clear in my statement, I accept that there is a statutory obligation on the British Gas
Corporation to ensure security of supplies. It is the duty of any Government to ensure that that is so.
As I also made clear in the statement, judging by the now known reserves, we believe that far fewer
imports will be required in the 1990s than was originally envisaged. On current estimates, it is still likely
that some imports will be required during that period. Of course, the BGC will negotiate in consultation
with Government—as it always has done—about the possibility of those supplies
coming from Norway or elsewhere. While that remains the position the question of exports does not
arise, especially if the demand for gas in this country is not met by our own supplies. In the foreseeable
future we shall need all the supplies from the North sea. As hon. Members know, at present we are a
major importer from the Frigg field in Norway.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have not taken a gamble. We have consulted carefully, and the
BGC has increased its estimate of gas reserves since it began negotiations. That implies is no criticism
of the corporation because when it began negotiations it was working, perfectly sensibly, on the then
known facts.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I repeat that we have a private
Members' day today, and it would be very unfair if a lot of time was taken up by the statements. I
therefore propose to allow questions to run for a further 15 minutes on this statement, and that goes for
the next statement as well.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is not the key fact that we now have
a rate of increased finds in the North sea? Does that not have major implications for security of supplies
and, just as importantly, for British jobs? Can my right hon. Friend estimate how many British jobs will
flow from this decision?

Mr. Walker: It is impossible to give any accurate
estimate, but, obviously, as we find more gas fields in the North sea there will be substantial investment.
As the majority of that investment will come from firms operating in Britain, the availability of more
supplies, and new and better discoveries, are obviously good news for jobs, particularly as many of
those jobs will be provided in the north east and in Scotland, which are areas of high
unemployment.

Mr. Dick Douglas: In view of his statement, will the
Secretary of State give an assurance that he will not in any circumstances permit the export of southern
sector gas from the United Kingdom? Will he give some assurances about the finds of probable and
possible reserves about which he spoke. The probable reserves are very futuristic. What is the right
hon. Gentleman's guesstimate of how long we can be assured of security of supplies?
What—

Mr. Speaker: Briefly.

Mr. Douglas: Yes, Mr. Speaker. What is the
likelihood of publishing the BGC's background papers, together with the right hon. Gentleman's views,
on the contract that he has renounced?

Mr. Walker: Obviously, it is for the BGC to decide
what it should publish.
The hon. Gentleman asked about security of supplies. I can only say that the increase of about 15 per
cent. in availability that has occurred since we published the Brown Book in July is something that I
could not have predicted last June. The hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of, and interest in,
these matters, and he will understand the difficulty. Ten years ago, when I previously had responsibility
for oil and gas, I was shown predictions which have now been proved to be totally wrong. I hope that
that trend will continue, because they are often proved wrong in the right direction for this country. The
estimates that we are now making are below those of some oil companies and above those of others.
To some extent, because of what is required from the licensing agreements that we have with various
fields, is only the Department that has all the detailed information. Thus we believe that there is good
security of supply. Judging by present requirements, all the gas in the North sea will be required by the
BGC in the immediate future. Obviously, if the time comes when our gas supplies are such that we have
surpluses, any Government would have to review the scene.

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I am grateful to my right hon.
Friend for his statement, because had it not been for the excellent news about reserves additional to
those published in the Brown Paper in April the position would have been unfortunate for my
constituents. Will my right hon. Friend maintain close liaison with the British Gas Corporation on the
question of increased production? Does he agree that that would not only secure existing jobs at St.
Fergus in my constituency, but possibly create further jobs?

Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend referred to the Brown
Book published in April. He is right. I referred to it as the July Brown Book, but it was published in
April. This decision will be helpful for jobs. A great deal of investment will take place in the new fields.
In the period leading up to the 1990s there will be further requirements for pipelines, which will also
provide more work.

Mr. James Molyneaux: In the light of the Secretary of
State's encouraging words about improved prospects for the development of our own offshore gas
fields over next few years and his hope that they will have welcome implications, will he look
sympathetically at the desirability of extending supplies of gas from the continental shelf to areas such
as Northern Ireland, where such gas is not currently avaialble?

Mr. Walker: I shall certainly discuss that with my right
hon. Friend who has responsibility for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tony Speller: Does my right hon. Friend agree
that, although deciding not to buy may or may not be a big decision at this time, it could have traumatic
effects upon a supplier who has relied upon a contract, as in this case? May we have my right hon.
Friend's assurance that the Norwegian Government—very good friends of ours—have
been kept fully in the picture and that there is no financial liability upon us for non-completion of the
contract?

Mr. Walker: Yes. I can assure my hon. Friend that we
value the manner of our talks with the Norwegian


Government. I have been involved in meetings with Norwegian Ministers and my right hon. Friend the
Minister of State has been in Norway over the last few days having full consultations with the
Norwegian Government. They will be disappointed, but they understand the reasons. The Government's
objective is to continue to have good relations with Norway.

Mr. James Tinn: Is the
Minister aware that, following the earlier Government decision not to go ahead with the gas-gathering
pipeline, to encourage the development of a totally unnecessary and unwanted petrochemical complex
at Mossmorran is yet another body blow to the people of Teesside, where unemployment is the highest
in mainland Britain? What does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do? Why will the Government not
allow the corporation to go ahead with an agreement which makes good commercial sense to it and
sound common sense to our good friends the Norwegians?

Mr. Walker: I do not think that the news is bad for
Teesside. There will be more developments in our own sector of the North sea and more suppliers,
investment and equipment will be required, much of which can come from the north-east. Further
pipelines are likely to be developed in this period and requirements in refining capacity are likely to be
increased from our own resources of gas in the North sea. That should not be bad news for the
north-east.

Mr. Peter Rost: Does my
right hon. Friend agree that one of the unsatisfactory aspects of the proposed deal was that the British
Gas Corporation was prepared to offer a higher price for Norwegian gas than it was to our own
suppliers? If our suppliers had been offered better prices earlier, we should not have had to negotiate
for the gas.

Mr. Walker: The fact that there has been such
success in our exploration over the period, and that there have been finds, shows that every
encouragement and incentive have been given for people to develop and produce. If one is negotiating
an import contract for the 1990s, one has genuinely to calculate the world price for that volume of
contract at that time. I am sure that that is what the British Gas Corporation did. I am pleased that the
taxation and other policies pursued by the Government have encouraged this development of our own
resources.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Is the
Secretary of State not in danger of misleading the country by presenting this as an either/or decision,
when the reality is that even the best forecasts suggest that we are likely to need Sleipner, and everything
else that has been discovered and is not yet discovered? Is the Minister not gambling on supplies which
have not yet been found? Will he acknowledge that by using the improving success rate as a justification
for his decision he is giving the opposite reason to that which the Government gave for not going ahead
with the gas-gathering system, which might have secured the gas supplies which we now need?

Mr. Walker: I think that further pipeline developments
will take place. I totally disagree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. If he looks at the
facts and the figures he will see that a contract for sales from Sleipner is not needed for the
1990s.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Is my right hon. Friend aware that,
to get security of supply, it would be best to link the European grid system with the English grid
system? Is my right hon. Friend aware that by his good decision announced today producers will be
given the incentive to bring their gas production forward, because there are ample supplies in the North
sea?

Mr. Walker: My projections show that there are better
supplies in the North sea than we predicted for the 1990s. Forecasts of consumption suggest that there
might well be a need for imports during that period. Any Government and the corporation have a duty
to keep the position under careful watch and care. Linking pipelines here with those in Norway or
elsewhere depends upon the nature of the supply and demand built up. At present we are in the happy
position of being able to take ourselves all the gas from North sea.

Mr. Frank Cook: In reply to my right hon. Friend the
Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) the Secretary of State said he was unable to make any prediction
about price. How then is he able to predict capacity and volume? Further to that, and following the
question by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) about employment—which is of
dire importance to us in the north-east—is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the 650 jobs at
the Philips handling, storage and processing facility which will be at risk before the end of the decade
will be guaranteed beyond the end of the century by the home-based reserves which he says we shall
tap for the next 15 to 20 years?

Mr. Walker: There was no guarantee under any
Sleipner agreement. Under that agreement, no decision was made about where the liquids would go.
There was no agreed position on that. As a generalisation, I think that for jobs in the north-east today's
announcement is a plus. On estimates and capacity, one must take the best information available. The
Department of Energy, under all Governments, can never be accused of having made over-optismistic
estimates of capacity. The Department has made the current estimates of capacity in the same way as it
has done over the years, under all Governments. The estimates are highly conservative and they are not
as accurate in their optimism as they could be. The Department has always been wise to be on the side
of prudence rather than of extravagance. It has continued that with these
estimates.

Mr. David Crouch: Does
my right hon. Friend agree that we have given a great deal of thought to this complex problem for many
years? Does he think on reflection that, looking at the possibility of a serious gap in the 1990s, we might
have passed up a valuable opportunity by turning down this contract? Does he agree that we might have
to resort to panic buying of Dutch and even Soviet gas in the 1990s?

Mr. Walker: Obviously, if I had thought that I should
have given approval to the Sleipner deal without hesitation. As my hon. Friend knows, we examined the
matter carefully, without any prejudice against the deal. The situation has genuinely changed to the
advantage of our country. It is the duty of any Government and the British Gas Corporation to ensure
that they have secure supplies for the decades to come. Those supplies may be available from many
parts of the world, including Norway, in the future.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Do not the anxieties mentioned by
the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) exist because the country and the House are so
uncertain about the Government's hopes and intentions for energy supplies from all different sources in
the coming years? Will the Secretary of State make much more clear to the House and to the country
how the Government see the energy mix for the future, so that better judgments can be made on such
deals? What is the British Gas Corporation's reaction to the decision that he has just announced?

Mr. Walker: The British Gas Corporation must be
free to make its own pronouncements. It has been fully consulted throughout and knows of the
adjustments we have made with regard to capacity and also the validity of the reasons on which we have
based our judgments. Obviously, having negotiated the Sleipner deal, the corporation must be
disappointed that it has not been completed. I am sure that the BGC will wish to continue good
relations with Norway as a potential supplier of gas in future, as it is at the present time.
On the hon. Gentleman's question about projections on a whole range of energy supplies, I remind him
— although not wishing to do so—of his political past. The party of which he used to
be a member published a series of projections for energy supplies over five and 10-year periods, but the
only thing that can be said about them is that they were all proved to be dramatically
wrong.

Atomic Energy Authority

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make
a statement about the future of the Atomic Energy Authority. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State for Energy told Parliament on 28 March that he had set in hand a wide-ranging review of the role
and activities of the authority. On 3 October he placed in the Library of the House a press statement
which summarised the recommendations of the review. Following consultations with the interested
parties, I can now inform the House of the conclusions reached by the Government.
Since the authority was established in 1954 as a vote-funded body with a high degree of statutory
independence, it has made a crucial contribution to the development of the civil uses of nuclear power
in this country. Today, civil nuclear power is an essential and established part of our national life. Last
year more than 18 per cent. of electricity supplied in the United Kingdom was nuclear. The proportion
will reach 21 per cent. when the three nuclear stations most recently linked to the national grid reach full
power, with a further increase when stations now under construction are completed. The civil nuclear
industry in the widest sense now provides about 100,000 jobs. All this has been achieved with an
excellent safety record. The authority's work is held in high regard and it will continue to have a major
role to play in both the nuclear and non-nuclear field.
The review had two guiding principles: first, that the authority should move further towards a
commercial basis of operation; secondly, that a defined customer-contractor relationship should be
applied as far as possible to its work. The Government fully endorse those principles.
The review recommended, and the Government accept, that the activities of the authority should be
placed on a trading fund basis. The authority will be required to account for its activities in a fully
commercial manner, within financial objectives set by the Secretary of State. We intend to provide the
authority with a capital structure and powers to borrow as required to enable it to operate as a trading
fund from April 1986, and will introduce legislation as soon as possible for that purpose.
I have considered carefully, in consultation with the authority and with its customers in the nuclear
industry, how the principles of the review should apply to the funding of particular programmes at
present financed by my Department. A balance is required between the application of the
customer-contractor principle, which is valuable for financial discipline and a more commercial
approach, and the retention of an independent capability for safety and underlying research in the
authority. The electricity industry, like the Government, attaches importance to that independent
capability. Although the generating boards will increase the amount of work which they pay for on a
customer-contractor basis, my Department will continue to fund a substantial authority programme of
thermal reactor and general safety research. The Government broadly endorse a recommendation of the
review group that there should be an element in the authority's charges to customers, including the


Department, in respect of underlying research. I am discussing the application of this recommendation
with those principals concerned.
The effect of the proposals will be to carry further the development of recent years under which the
funding of the authority's expenditure has become more broadly based and proportionately less
dependent on Department of Energy Votes. In particular, there will be a further increase in funding by
the CEGB. With other changes, I expect this to result in a reduction of £5 million in my
departmental Vote in 1985–86 compared with previous plans.
I have already mentioned the authority's contribution to the development of civil nuclear power in this
country. It continues to give valuable support to the nuclear industry in both the public and private
sectors. It is diversifying its services in the non-nuclear field, and has made an important contribution to
technology relevant to North sea development.
The evolutionary changes I have just announced will put the authority on an increasingly commercial
footing and will give its staff a new incentive. I am confident that the changes will enable the authority
further to develop its role and contribution to the economy on both a national and international basis. I
am also confident that all those concerned will join in taking full advantage of this new
opportunity.

Mr. Alexander Eadie: The
Minister's announcement is unsatisfactory on three counts. First, as the Minister said, to put the
authority on a commercial basis is an evolutionary change. We believe that it is a change towards
privatisation. I draw the Minister's attention to the note appended to the statement of 3 October so that
the House is under no misunderstanding about the way in which the Government have clothed today's
statement. Paragraph 9, entitled
The Authority as a Trading Fund
states:
The extension of the customer/contractor approach to the Authority's nuclear work for the
Department would be facilitated by putting the Authority on a Trading Fund basis. This would require
all work to be accounted for on a fully commercial basis, impose additional discipline through the
requirement to meet financial objectives, create financial flexibility between years, highlight major issues
which need to be dealt with in commercial terms, and facilitate possible eventual
privatisation.
Secondly, does the Minister realise that the people of this country will be appalled that work connected
with nuclear power, whether research or in any other area, will be on a commercial basis, in private
hands? The Minister has argued that the justification for that is the saving of £5 million. That is
not an argument; it is an unsafe betrayal in the interests of private profit.
Thirdly, is it not monstrous that the result of the announcement will be to take from Parliament the right
to question and seek accountability for that aspect of nuclear power activity?
The Government appear not only to be preparing the way for privatisation, but to be weakening the
authority of Parliament.

Mr. Goodlad: I may be able to put some of the hon.
Gentleman's fears at rest. There are no plans to privatise the Atomic Energy Authority. Therefore, the
fears that animated his first and second points do not apply.
On the hon. Gentleman's third point, there will be no reduction in accountability to this House because
of the change to the trading fund.

Mr. John Hannam: Does my
hon. Friend agree that this decision really consolidates the existing trend on outside financing? Will he
reiterate that research into the safety of nuclear reactors will still be a top priority of the Government?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is quite right to say
that the move to a trading fund will reinforce a trend that is already taking place. He is also correct to
say that the resources available to the authority for thermal reactor and general safety research will not
be reduced. The Department will continue to fund substantial authority programmes in that area. The
Government attach paramount importance to safety, and will continue to do
so.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Under the trading fund structure, will
capital borrowings now cease to be counted by the Treasury in the public expenditure totals?

Mr. Goodlad: The capital structure of the trading
fund has yet to be established by my right hon. Friend, and will be the subject of continuing
consultations.

Mr. Rob Hayward: In
welcoming the statement, may I ask whether the authority will continue to co-operate with its European
partners in the projects that are currently operating?

Mr. Goodlad: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I accept that, after it has
successfully spearheaded the development and research of the nuclear programme during about 30
years, it is sensible to move towards a recognition of the commercial possibilities of the authority.
However, does the Minister realise that his statement is unsatisfactorily opaque in that, although it
accepts in principle the recommendation of a trading fund, it does not begin to define which matters will
still be funded by the Department? There have been six months of consultation on this matter. Is there a
risk that fundamental research will not be commissioned, and therefore, not carried out? How does the
Minister propose to continue to fund the fast-breeder reactor programme?

Mr. Goodlad: I said in my statement that the
underlying research of the authority will remain a priority. That will be the case. My Department will
continue to provide funding to underlying research, and the industry will also contribute. The position
of the fast-breeder reactor programme will remain as it is at present. The programme is proceeding
through the collaborative arrangements set out in the intergovernmental memorandum of understanding
which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State signed in January last year. The resources available to
the programme are not changed by this decision, but the work will be carried out on a more explicit
customer-contractor relationship between the Department and the
authority.

Viscount Cranborne: My hon. Friend's statement will be
studied with the keenest interest at the atomic energy establishment at Winfrith, which is the largest
employer in my constituency. The workers there will appreciate his remarks about their work in safety


and nuclear matters, and about the additional research that they have done on North sea oil. However,
will he give them some assurance this afternoon as to whether the commercial implications of his
statement, which I am sure will be broadly welcomed, will give undue leverage to the Central Electricity
Generating Board over the authority's activities? Does he accept that many people throughout the
industry, and especially in my constituency, would be most grateful for a reassurance on this matter?

Mr. Goodlad: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute
to the distinguished work that has been done at Winfrith for many years, in which I know he has taken a
close interest. I assure him that no undue influence will follow this review either from the CEGB or
anyone else.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The Minister referred to research,
notably in connection with the fast-breeder reactor. What effect will the Government's proposals have
on longer-term research into changing to the fusion process instead of fission?

Mr. Goodlad: The review of the authority did not
cover fusion. The position remains that research into fusion forms an integral part of the Euratom fusion
programme and is a successful example of European cooperation in a high technology sector. Recently
I announced that the Government's direct contribution to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy
Authority's fusion work, which is carried out under a contract of association with Euratom, should be
£15·9 million in 1985–86, £13·7 million in
1986–87 and £13·3 million in 1987–88. That funding, together with
our commitment to the joint European Torus project under the joint understanding and the host
agreement, will ensure that the United Kingdom maintains a substantial fusion
programme.

Mr. Michael Morris: Will the external financing limit of
the electricity supply industry be adjusted because of its increased contribution, which will come about
presumably because of this change?

Mr. Goodlad: In principle, changes will be reflected
in the EFL.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Does the Minister accept that nuclear
power capacity is a matter of considerable political sensitivity, and that there is genuine concern that
increased commercialisation is bound to impinge on control and accountability? Will he expand his
previous assurance and tell us what changes are being made to ensure that, in this different perception
of the authority's role, there will be genuine accountability to, and control by, the House?

Mr. Goodlad: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the
Government and the House will have as much control and accountability as they have always
had.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Will the financial objectives be set
out in White Papers or in specific legislation brought before the House for that purpose, like section 29
of the Water Act 1973? When is such legislation likely to appear?

Mr. Goodlad: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State will be responsible for setting the financial objectives of the authority, with the agreement of the
Treasury and after consultation with the authority. The timing of legislation will be a matter for my right
hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

NHS (Theft and Corruption)

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to ask leave to move the
Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and
important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the detailed revelation that has just been made of the magnitude of theft and corruption in the
National Health Service by a number of consultants who abuse NHS facilities in their practice of private
medicine at a cost to the public purse of some tens of millions of pounds a year.
The matter is specific because, for the first time, after an in-depth audit of 37 district health authorities
after the revelation of significant fraud at Sutton Coldfield last summer, several hospitals and
consultants were named in a detailed analysis of the official evidence by a "TV Eye" programme last
Thursday evening entitled "Consultants on the Make." It revealed point by point how even the recently
tightened procedures adopted by many health authorities cannot prevent abuse by private medicine on a
significant scale, and showed that it is now becoming endemic in the National Health Service.
The matter is of vital national importance because it reveals that the fundamental principles of the NHS
are being eroded, not by the odd rotten apple in the barrel here and there, but systematically and all over
the country. In Darlington, consultants destroyed 27 key forms which showed that fees were owed to
the NHS. In Merthyr Tydfil, NHS patients were told that they would have to become private patients if
they wanted hospital treatment urgently. In Sutton Coldfield, after the original row had been made public
and a tightening-up exercise instituted, consultants' fees to the Good Hope hospital suddenly increased
by £1,000 a month. In Wakefield, consultants manufactured forms to conceal evidence of
having treated private patients. In Derby, NHS laboratory facilities were used for testing hundreds of
animal specimens for local vets, without the knowledge or permission of the health authority, and such
tests were given precedence over tests for some human patients. Yet the "TV Eye" programme shows
that those examples are only the tip of the iceberg.
This matter is urgent for two main reasons. First, Ministers have a clear public duty to stop this
haemorrhage of public funds from the abuses now uncovered as being of a serious and growing
magnitude. The annual loss to the Exchequer is already substantially greater that the annual income to
the Exchequer from the overseas visitor regulations which the Government insisted on introducing
because a tiny number of foreigners were not making full payment of fees to the National Health
Service.
The matter is also urgent because in any other walk of life theft on this scale would have resulted in
instant dismissal and criminal proceedings, possibly involving years in prison.
Where persons are found to have been deliberately using their positions of power and prestige to
defraud the rest of the community, the issue should be taken up without delay. The individuals
concerned should be named and dealt with immediately. I submit that it is incumbent upon us to ensure,
for the good name of the House, that that happens. For these reasons, I request that the matter be
debated in the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Oldham, West
(Mr. Meacher) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the


House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent
consideration, namely,
the wholesale evasion of fee-paying by those practising private medicine in the NHS and the
consequential major loss of public revenue as revealed by a Thames Television programme entitled
'Consultants on the Make'.
I have listened with care to the hon. Gentleman, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he
has raised as appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10. Therefore, I cannot submit his
application to the House.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Dick Douglas: I beg to ask leave to move the
Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and
important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating situation in the Scottish coalfield which raises questions about man
management relations, the future of jobs and investment prospects in the area and the survival of local
communities, indicating the need for a principled and negotiated settlement of the current
dispute.
The matter is specific, Mr. Speaker, because, while it is part of the miners' general dispute, it relates to a
specific coalfield. The background for that coalfield is different from that for other areas of the United
Kingdom, because before the present dispute there was evidence of a difference in the approach of
management to safety cover. In other areas of the coal board, the British Association of Colliery
Managers was called in to provide safety cover, but in Scotland that has not happened. I have made
submissions previously on this issue and referred to the Bogside colliery in my constituency.
We have no doubt that management has a right to manage, but anyone who knows anything about the
coal industry will recognise that this is an extremely circumscribed right because of practice and
legislation. A suitable analogy is that of the safety of a ship at sea. The coalmine manager wants the right
to manage, but he cannot manage properly without the co-operation of others in the industry, especially
the members of the NUM and NACODS.
In my constituency and in other areas of Fife there has been a massive loss of jobs, which has made the
matter extremely urgent. We have lost faces at Castlehill and at the Frances-Seafield complex. The
evidence is that the men have provided safety cover when requested to do so. On the other hand,
management has played a cat-and-mouse game.
There has been disagreement in the House about a principled and negotiated settlement of the dispute
because of different interpretations of the NACODS agreement of October 1984. I shall quote briefly
from the agreement to show that we must adopt a different interpretation from the one that has been
adopted by Ministers. Part of the NACODS agreement states:
the Board are very ready to re-examine the Review Procedure and to adopt any amendments
which will improve its effectiveness. The Association will appreciate, of course, that this must be done
in a way which will meet with the approval of all the parties concerned, including NUM and
BACM.
I submit that that sentence gives the lie to the Government's interpretation of the agreement. The
agreement cannot be triggered, except with the approval of the NUM and the BACM. That reflects the
negotiated intentions of the parties.
The matter is urgent, because we are suffering a massive haemorrhage of jobs in the coal industry in
areas of high unemployment. We need to reach a settlement because of the damage to Scottish
employment and the effect that the dispute is having on areas of high unemployment, such as my
constituency in Fife.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this matter should take precedence over the business of the House as set out
on the Order Paper, and request you to grant a debate on it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Dunfermline,
West (Mr. Douglas) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a
specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the deteriorating situation in the Scottish coalfield which raises serious questions about man
management relations, the future of jobs and investment prospects in the area and the survival of local
communities, indicating the need for a principled and negotiated settlement of the current
dispute.
I regret that I have to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer as I gave to the hon. Member for
Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I listened carefully to what he said, but I do not consider that the matter
which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10, and, therefore, I cannot
submit his application to the House.

Mr. Clive Ponting (Trial)

Mr. John Morris: I beg to
ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of
discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the misuse of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and whether the Attorney-General, in
current circumstances, should have granted his consent to prosecute in the case of the Queen v.
Ponting.
The intervention of the Leader of the House on a preemptive point of order does not satisfy us. A
statement is to be made by a person unknown—the Government are coy about revealing who
will make the statement. That is no substitute for a debate at the earliest opportunity.
This matter is specific. As the House began this afternoon's sitting, the news reached us of the aquittal
of Mr. Clive Ponting. It might be said that it was as much a conviction of the Government as an aquittal
of Mr. Ponting. It is possibly a reflection on the role of the Secretary of State for Defence and his
Minister of State, both of whose actions must cause considerable anxiety to the House.
It is important that the Attorney-General, with the Solicitor-General, took the decision to prosecute in a
case where there was, on the Crown's admission, no security consideration. It is important that we hear
the Attorney-General's justification for his decision. On 12 November 1984 he told the House:
Once the case has been disposed of, I shall have to answer for my decision here, and I am not
frightened to do it."—[Official Report, 12th November 1984; Vol. 67, c.
410.]
The matter is urgent because, for all we know, there may be other cases pending that are awaiting the
decision of the Attorney-General. Can the House save the Crown from falling flat on its face again? Are
others to be put in unnecessary jeopardy because of the Attorney-General's decisions and Parliament's
failure to substitute a code that is more intelligible and more capable of enforcement? That was the
effect of the Lord Chancellor's words when he was introducing a Bill seeking the protection of official
information in 1979. That measure sought to deal with the issue and to limit
criminality.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Member for
Aberavon (Mr. Morris) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing
a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the misuse of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and whether the Attorney-General, in
current circumstances, should have granted his consent to prosecute in Regina v.
Ponting.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised this matter at the first possible opportunity. He knows
that the verdict was announced after I took the Chair and he has heard the Leader of the House say that
there is to be a statement tomorrow. I have listened with care to the right hon. and learned Gentleman,
but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised as appropriate for discussion under
Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the
House.

Mr. Chris Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I do not wish in any way to contest your ruling on the application of my right hon. and learned Friend
the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)


to seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10. However, I have a
constituency interest in the matter that he raised and I seek your guidance on how it will be possible,
after tomorrow's statement, to call the Government to account for their motives and reasons for
bringing the prosecution in the first place. It does not seem to be possible, after a statement, to put such
questions to the Attorney-General. I ask for guidance on this extremely important
matter.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot advise the hon. Member about
tactics, and he would not expect me to do so. He should wait for the statement tomorrow. If he catches
my eye he will have the opportunity to put a question to the Minister who makes the statement. There
are other parliamentary ways of bringing this matter before the House.

Abortion

Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the continuing high numbers of abortions in the United
Kingdom, particularly the number of late abortions highlighted by the recent study group of the Royal
College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; and calls upon the Government to pay attention to the
moral and ethical questions raised by abortion.
A Member of Parliament may have to wait a considerable number of years before he is fortunate enough
to have a motion called for debate. I could have decided to ask the House to debate the economy,
which is of central concern to the nation, but the House spends virtually every day of every week
discussing such issues.
Abortion is one issue of vital moral and ethical concern to millions of people which has not been
discussed in the House for nearly five years. Since that issue was last discussed, about 600,000
abortions have been performed. Since the passing of the Abortion Act 1967, 2,234,326 abortions have
been carried out — 145 every day of every year. As one person put it, "It seems that the
Abortion Act has got cancer." It has resulted in many more abortions being performed than the original
sponsors of the 1967 legislation intended. For those reasons, I believe that it is my duty to give
Parliament an opportunity to debate this issue.
The abortion issue raises classic arguments between principle and expediency. I shall deal, first, with the
arguments of principle, then go on to the arguments of expediency and finally review the law as it
stands.
Two questions are raised in the arguments of principle. First, is human life sacred? Secondly, where
does human life begin?
The answer to the first question must be an unequivocal yes. Human life is sacred to the Christian who
believes that every soul has a right to conscience so that it can know God. Human life is sacred to the
humanist who believes that, because life terminates with death, everyone has a right to life. I believe that
human life is sacred because everyone has a right to life. The mentally retarded have as much right to
life as the mentally normal. The old, the sick, the weak and the stupid have as much right to life as the
young, the healthy, the strong and the clever.
The second question is: where does human life begin? Foetology has made great strides in recent years.
Ultra-scan techniques allow us to peer into the secret life of the womb. We know that the embryo is
genetically complete at conception. We know that at the 25th day following conception the heart beats.
We know that the bones are being formed by the sixth week and that by the 10th week all limbs are
established. Even to the layman's eye, the foetus is obviously a human being. We know that at the 16th
week the heart pumps about 50 pints of blood a day. We know that at the 20th week eyebrows and
eyelashes have already formed. From the knowledge that has been built up during the past 20 years, we
know that birth is an incident in a long-established process. A line cannot be drawn at any one stage
— whether at six, 12 or 20 weeks, or even birth—at which one can say, "This is where
life begins." The only logical conclusion is that life begins at conception.
Another objection to these arguments is that life begins when it is capable of being sustained away from
the


mother. That begs other serious questions. Is life sustainable immediately after birth when a baby is still
reliant on outside support? A baby left in the womb would have a chance to survice. Most important of
all is the question: does dependence deny existence?
A woman certainly has a right to choose to have, say, her appendix taken out. Her appendix is
dependent on her and can have no prospect of independent existence. Does a woman have a right to
choose to terminate the foetus, which is certainly dependent on her but which has the opportunity of
independence in the future? Those are two very different arguments.
I should have thought that those arguments show that, if one looks at this issue purely from the point of
personal principle, there can be only one answer—that abortion is wrong. However, many
would say, "Although, speaking for myself, I may think that abortion is wrong, I am not prepared to
impose my views on society."
I do not want to deny the seriousness of the back-street abortion argument or to deny the pain and
humiliation suffered under the previous law by many women through back-street abortions. I must,
however deal with the moral argument put forward by the anti-abortionists who say, "Because burglaries
will always take place, is that an argument for making them legal?"
One need not take the moral point of view alone. There is evidence that the 1967 abortion laws created a
new clientele for abortion. Society today is very different from society in 1967. Birth control is
universally available. Society hopes to care and counsel women faced with unplanned pregnancies
rather than to censure them.
An interesting report published by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in 1966
showed that, based on hospital admissions and deaths, there were about 14,000 illegal abortions in
1966. That compares with 128,000 abortions a year now. It is said by those in favour of abortion that
the official statistics camouflage the real state of affairs. If that were the case, one would have expected
the deaths to figure somewhere in the official statistics. In fact, the figures show that, although the
number of deaths among women of child-bearing age was decreasing by 300 a year before 1967, in the
first full year of the operation of the 1967 Act the number increased.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that
Britain has one of the lowest abortion rates in the world—a rate that has changed little during the
past 10 years — contrary to the impression that he is trying to give?

Mr. Leigh: I said that there had been about 128,000
abortions a year. The abortion rate has been fairly steady in recent years, as the hon. Lady said. That is
a matter of interest and concern to the House.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Since the passing of the 1967
legislation, there have been about 2,333,000 abortions. That is a substantial and damaging
figure.

Mr. Leigh: I said that at the beginning of my speech.
My hon. Friend has made a fair point.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman has cited
the number of abortions since the 1967 legislation was passed. He seems to be motivated by the
increased numbers. Have we any means of finding out the number of back-street abortions? Does the
hon.

Gentleman assume that the number is less since the 1967 Act and that more abortions are now carried
out in a proper way because that is the more sensible approach?

Mr. Leigh: I said that the report by the Royal College
of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists suggested that there were about 14,000 illegal abortions in 1966.
There is no doubt that, although the Act has resulted in fewer backstreet abortions, it has created a
considerably enlarged clientele for abortions, and that is a matter of anxiety. They have increased. There
have been 2 million abortions since 1967. There is no doubt that the Act has resulted in a considerable
increase in abortions in this country.

Ms. Clare Short: rose—

Mr. Leigh: I am sure that the hon. Lady will wish to
speak. I want to go on to other points. If she wishes to intervene on them, I shall give way.
I shall deal with the difficult arguments about rape. I do not deny the existence of the serious and
heartfelt anxiety about that issue. The Churches take a moral line which I must mention briefly. It is that
one act of violence can never justify another, but the figures show that only about 2 per cent. of
abortions are for genuine medical reasons, including rape. Many people who are worried about the
abortion legislation as it now operates would be prepared to provide for rape, but that would not affect
the 108,000 abortions carried out last year under section 2.
The main argument pursued by pro-abortionists is: better no child than an unwanted child. In modern
Britain there is and need be no such thing as an unwanted child. For every child there are 10 childless
couples desperate to adopt. Our want is not a reliable judgment as to whether a human life should be
allowed to exist. There is no evidence to show that wanted children are not maltreated. Dr. Edward
Lenoski calculated that 91 per cent. of child abuse took place with wanted children. Since the passing
of the Act, there have been 317,000 more children in care. The arguments about wanted or unwanted
children are the same as those used in the pagan world about infanticide and exposure of children on the
hillside.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Does
my hon. Friend agree that the statistics show that in 1968—the year that the Abortion Act came
into effect—there were about 24,000 adoptions in this country, and that in 1983 there were
about 9,000 adoptions, of which only about 3,000 were for truly illegitimate children and were
non-parental applications? Does not that vast decrease in the number of children available for adoption
since 1968 say a great deal in favour of the point that he is making?

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. There
is the argument that, as a man, I have no right to discuss this issue. It is not my business to apportion
blame. I do not underestimate the considerable pressures caused by unwanted pregnancy. Society has
no right to censure unplanned pregnancy. Society has a duty to care and to give unstinting love,
guidance and advice on how life can be saved rather than on how it can be destroyed. The House has a
duty and a right to speak up for the weak against the strong.
I said that I would begin by looking at the arguments of principle and then of expediency. I wish briefly
to review the law as it stands. The fundamental law on this subject is the Offences Against the Person
Act 1861, which proscribed abortion. That was amended by the


Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, which introduced the offences of child destruction or causing the
death of a child capable of being born alive. That is an important point to which I wish to return later,
because it is of significance to late abortions. The Act was amended as a result of the case of Regina
v. Bourne which decided that a woman's life depended upon physical and mental health as much
as anything else.
Those Acts were amended by the Abortion Act 1967. The Abortion Act provided four grounds for
abortion—life saving, therapeutic, social and engenic. In 1983, out of 127,375 abortions,
108,806 — the vast majority — were performed under section 2, which relates to the risk
of injury to the physical or mental health of the woman; only 538 abortions were perfomed under
section 1, which relates to the risk to the life of a pregnant woman; and only 2,019 were carried out
under the engenic section, which relates to the risk of birth of a severely abnormal baby.
Apart from the strongly pro-abortion lobby, there is almost universal anxiety about the number of late
abortions. I am talking about abortions performed between the 24th and 28th weeks. Advances in
medical science have ensured that babies of fewer than 24 weeks gestational age can be born alive. As
The Times put it on 9 January 1984:
Every advance in obstetric techniques makes the present position less tenable.
My reading of the Acts, and that of many others, tells me —I hope that my right hon. and
learned Friend will comment on this point — that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act defines child
destruction as the killing in utero of a child capable of being born alive regardless of gestational age. A
baby aborted alive is covered by the law relating to homicide.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to comment on the view that it is unnecessary to have a new
upper limit Bill. All that the Government need do is to circulate and inform area health authorities that,
with the advances in medical science, the age of viability stands, according to the Department of Health
and Social Security, at 20, 22 or 24 weeks and that abortions committed beyond that gestational period
are illegal.

Mrs. Renée Short: How many abortions have
taken place after 20 weeks of pregnancy during the past five years or so?

Mr. Leigh: I do not have the figures in my head, but I
have them in my briefing papers.

Mrs. Short: That is the
case.

Mr. Leigh: Of course, the hon. Lady is right. The vast
majority of abortions are performed within the 10th or 12th week period.

Dr. M. S. Miller: rose—

Mr. Leigh: May I just answer the hon. Lady's point?
As I said, the vast majority of abortions are performed early in pregnancy, but that does not deny the
argument about principle that I put forward earlier. Abortions are still carried out beyond the 20th
week.

Mrs. Renée Short: How many?

Mr. Leigh: I wish to deal with that point
now.

Mr. Charles Morrison: In the
interest of accuracy, will my hon. Friend accept from me that in 1983

—the latest year for which figures are available—the number of abortions carried out
later than 20 weeks was 1·38 per cent. of the total and that the reasons for those abortions
were good and strong?

Mr. Leigh: To answer that point, I wish to deal with
the confidential study carried out by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which was
worried about late abortions, and some interesting facts emerged from that study. The number of late
abortions was six to one in the private sector as against the National Health Service; 54 per cent. were
carried out on women from abroad; 87 per cent. were under section 2, which, I think, answers the point
made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison); and only 0·16 per cent.
were carried out under section 1—risk to life of the pregnant woman.
There is anxiety about late abortions and the financial link between referral agencies and abortion clinics,
which are not allowed to advertise, and how people are persuaded to go to abortion clinics on the
advice of referral agencies.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves
the issue of late abortions—I sympathise and agree with much of what he is
saying—does he accept that it is not as easy as he says to pinpoint the exact time when an
abortion is late? He says that 26 weeks is accepted, but it is not accepted. There is no consensus that
viability is certain at 26 weeks, for the simple reason that the exact moment of conception is never
known. There can be differences of one, two, three or four weeks.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I think
that most people accept that 28 weeks as the age of viability is far too late, given the advances that have
taken place in medical science. There have been cases of babies being born alive, even though their
gestational age is less than 24 weeks.
I do not believe that the sponsors of the original Act wanted to see a close financial link between referral
agencies and abortion clinics.
On the conscience question, under English law, a person is innocent until proved guilty, but under the
abortion legislation doctors are required to prove conscience. Recently nurses have been sacked for
refusing to insert instruments prior to an abortion, for refusing to fill in forms or for refusing to make
appointments. There should be an absolute right for doctors and nurses with conscientious objections
not to be involved in abortions.
One of the most difficult areas considered in the recent amending Bill was the tightening up of the
sections of the 1967 Act. In December 1979, during proceedings in Standing Committee C on the
Abortion (Amendment) Bill, the then Solicitor-General dealt with the statistical argument. The Act in
general gives the right to carry out abortions if the risk of childbirth to a mother's health is greater than
the risk of her having an abortion. Abolitionists claim that the figures prove that fewer women die from
abortion than used to die from childbirth. That is true, but the figures are not comparable, because
women who die during childbirth tend to be suffering from some gross abnormality, whereas those who
die from abortion tend to be healthy young women who would have had a normal pregnancy.
In 1979, the Solicitor-General stressed the lack of yardsticks in determining relative risks. I believe that
the statistical argument could be overcome by including in the


1967 Act the words "serious or substantial". It is interesting to note that Sir John Peel, the Queen's
gynaecologist, told the Standing Committee in 1979 that between 5 and 10 per cent. of women having
abortions suffered sterility; that figure did not include abnormalities.
In my review of the law, I have refrained from taking the absolutist line that all abortions are wrong. I
have simply tried to review the law as it stands. Politics being the art of the possible, I do not believe
that one can take an absolutist line. There is a case for a step-by-step approach in this immensely
important issue. Parliament has a right to discuss it, and I hope that hon. Members will support me for
having given Parliament that opportunity.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind
the House that the debate must end at 7 o'clock, so we have less than two hours left. Many hon.
Members wish to speak.

Mrs. Renée Short: I think that the House would
have preferred not to have this debate. In the past 16 to 18 years, some of us have sat through
numerous debates following the passing of the 1967 Act, which provided relief for women, and we
remember hearing similar arguments to those presented today by the hon. Member for Gainsborough
and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).
It is disappointing that so many years after the passing of an Act that has been endorsed by the medical
profession an hon. Member should present ad nauseam the same old jejune arguments that the 1967 Act
rendered out of date. I shall not bother to respond to those old arguments, though the Minister for
Health may feel the need to do so.
As regards the new points raised in the motion of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle,
there are legal restrictions on late abortions. The clinics where terminations are carried out are controlled
and inspected; an inspectorate was set up under the 1967 Act.
In 1975, the Department of Health and Social Security laid down that terminations in non-NHS premises
should be performed after 20 weeks only if resuscitation equipment was available and staff were present
on the premises to use it, thus obviating the danger to the mother. In 1980, the DHSS wrote to all places
that are approved to perform terminations saying that in cases of terminations where the stage of
gestation was believed to be over 20 weeks or there was a reasonable possibility that it may become 20
weeks and the period of gestation was in doubt, an ultrasound scan should be performed. In the same
year, the Department also recommended that scans should be carried out on all women who were 16
weeks to 20 weeks pregnant, in the hope that
the additional assurance of an ultrasound scan will serve both as a safeguard to patients and
prove also to be in the best interests of both the operating doctors and the nursing home proprietors
against the possibility of subsequent allegations being made that a foetus was viable at the time of
termination.
So strong regulations are laid down to control doctors working in private nursing
homes.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is the hon. Lady aware that in 1983
there were 1,747 abortions after the 20th week? Is that not still a matter of great concern?

Mrs. Short: I shall present figures later, but I wish to
go through my argument in sequence.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle must have regard to what the BMA says, and the
association's handbook of ethics states:
the doctor should recommend or perform termination after 20 weeks only if he is convinced
that the health of the woman is seriously threatened or if the child will be seriously
handicapped.
That is a clear instruction to doctors.
The latest figures from the Department—for 1983—were published last year. They show
that only 1·19 per cent. of terminations were performed at 20 to 23 weeks, and that only
0·19 per cent. were performed at 24 weeks or later. That puts the matter in perspective.
We should congratulate all those involved and thank the DHSS for what it is doing to control nursing
homes. We should also congratulate the medical profession on ensuring that so few terminations take
place after 20 weeks. We should be celebrating those facts instead of discussing this sort of motion.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle seems to think, the medical
profession is carrying out its responsibilities.
The other serious ground for late abortion is that there is likely to be permanent injury to the physical or
mental health of the mother. It is a serious decision, whatever the hon. Member and some of his
supporters say, for both the woman and her doctor to terminate pregnancy at 24 weeks or later. One of
the great benefits of the Act is that it has encouraged terminations to take place by a much simpler
process and much earlier, so there is much less risk to the mother.
What does the hon. Gentleman suggest should he done when lateness is the responsibility of the NHS
and not the patient? The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, whom the hon. Gentleman
quoted twice in his speech, said that only last year—perhaps these are more up-to-date figures
than the hon. Gentleman has —over 20 per cent. of women who had terminations between 20
and 23 weeks had been medically referred for termination before the end of the 12th week. It is clear
where the delay occurs—in the NHS machinery. Had their terminations been carried out as soon
as possible after the end of the 12th week, when they were referred, or as soon as is acceptable or
desirable, they would have been terminated before the 14th week instead of at 20 to 23 weeks.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister for Health will discover why the delay occurs between consultation
and operation in a small number of cases, which is obviously serious. It does not happen in the private
sector where terminations are carried out very early. There is a considerable impetus for the private
nursing homes to get their patients in as early as possible, and many of them are run precisely for
carrying out that procedure alone. Therefore, I must conclude that either there is poor organisation in
the NHS or perhaps some consultants hope that the patients will be diverted into the private sector,
where they have an interest in performing terminations in private nursing homes. There could be that
profit motive for some of the less scrupulous members of the medical profession. I am certain that they
are only a minority, but they exist and delays are caused.
Does the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle give any thought to the problem of the
menopausal woman who does not always realise when she is pregnant, or the young girl who is similarly
unaware? The latter perhaps does not want to accept the fact that she


is pregnant and hopes that if she does nothing about it, it will go away. What about the mentally
handicapped woman who becomes pregnant, perhaps because of rape, and who does not realise that
she is pregnant? There are many such cases. They can lead to late terminations which, I emphasise, are
a tiny proportion of the total number of terminations carried out.
I hope that the Minister will also examine this point. One of the most serious problems that is the
responsibility of the NHS is the delay in carrying out amniocentesis. There is a problem for the older
woman who is pregnant. Amniocentesis is carried out to establish whether the child is likely to be
handicapped. That is crucial to the older woman, who is at greater risk of producing a handicapped
child. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to deny her the relief that the law allows?
Professor Eva Alberman, who is well known to the Select Committee because she was our
epidemiologist specialist adviser when the Select Committee carried out an inquiry into perinatal
mortality, recently published a report in The Lancet which revealed that, in the absence of any
other change in medical practice, a reduction in the legal age of foetal viability to 24 weeks would have
meant that during 1982 a total of 26 abortions for seriously handicapping conditions could not have
been carried out. A reduction to 22 weeks would have stopped 77 such abortions from being
performed. Professor Alberman also referred to the importance of early diagnosis of foetal abnormality
and yet found that in at least a proportion of the late abortions studied there were delays, some of
which, she and others suggest, might have been avoidable both before and after the tests for
abnormality.
Therefore, it is clear that the weight of medical opinion supports early terminations. The figures show
that over 90 per cent. of terminations are carried out within the time limit prescribed by the Act, and
only a tiny proportion—less than 2 per cent. during the past four or five years—have
been carried out later than the legal time limit provided for in the Act. They are for serious cases where
there is a late discovery of a suspected abnormality.

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Lady has not answered the point
made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels). According to the official
statistics for 1983, the figure was 1,509, which is a considerable number. It may be only 2 per cent. but
some of us on this side of the argument realise that it is only 2 per cent. because the total number of
abortions is so large anyway—and far too large.

Mrs. Short: If one takes the number of terminations
that were carried out at that stage of pregnancy and thinks of the enormous number of deaths that
occurred when women had terminations before the Act was passed, one finds that there is no
comparison. The Act has brought enormous relief to women, and I am only sorry that so few
terminations, certainly in my region, are carried out under the NHS. Nearly 5,000 legal abortions were
carried out in the west midlands in three months up to December. Of the 4,919 total, the vast majority
— that is, 4,225 — were carried out privately in private nursing homes, where the
operation is carried out for private profit and gain. Only 694 were carried out under the Health Service
in the whole of the west midlands region. Therefore, there can be no argument that terminations,
certainly in the west midlands

region, are preventing other gynaecological cases from having the treatment that they require. It is much
to be regretted that the private nursing homes can make so much money out of carrying out those
operations, but the Act provides for that.
The overwhelming majority of terminations should be carried out early, well before the 20th week, many
before the 12th and 14th week. There should be proper inspection of the private nursing homes. The
House and the country as a whole should be satisfied that the provisions of the Act can be carried out
correctly and that there is no need for the present motion, which does not take account of the
improvements in technique, in inspection and, above all, of the overwhelming number of cases where
terminations are carried out so much earlier even than the limit that the Act now
provides.

Sir Bernard Braine: I should like to begin by
congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on his good
fortune in the ballot and his personal decision to choose what is to all of us a difficult, emotive and
distressing subject. He argued his case with good sense and moderation. He is right to ask for a fresh
look to be taken at the whole subject.
I should make it clear that I am not—and was not in 1966—opposed to abortion where
there is a serious risk—I am using my words carefully—to the life of the pregnant
woman, or a risk of grave injury to her physical or mental health, or where there is substantial risk that
the child, when born, would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities which would deprive it of any
reasonable enjoyment of life.
That, incidentally, was the view of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in 1966. If
that advice had been taken by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel),
the Act, which I admit was necessary in the circumstances, might not have led to so much criticism and
we should not have needed to debate the subject again today. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for
Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) that in 1966 the law needed to be cleaned up. There is no
dispute about that, although I do not think that it is possible to sustain the argument advanced by those
who favoured abortion virtually on demand that the figures for criminal abortions were horrendous
because, as the Royal College pointed out at the time, the figures it gave were
without any secure factual foundation".
They were guesstimates. Nevertheless, I do not think that any one of us would deny that there was a
serious situation in regard to criminal abortions and therefore an urgent need for legislation. The pity of
it was that too little attention was paid to the wording of that measure.
I was involved in those early debates and many moments stand out clearly in my mind. On 22 July 1966
the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale told the House that he simply wanted to
get rid of back-street abortion. He added that
it is not the intention of the promoters of the Bill to leave a wide open door for abortion on
request."—[Official Report, 22 July 1966; Vol. 732, c. 1075.]
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's intention was indeed as he stated it. That was also the intention
of the Standing Committee and indeed of the whole House.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The right hon. Gentleman is
widening the scope of the debate, but he must remember that the inclusion of words such as "serious"
or "substantial" lead to problems. The legal profession said that such definitions were impossible to
make, and the medical profession was not prepared to be put in jeopardy because the circumstances in
which abortion was permissible were not clear.

Sir Bernard Braine: That is quite correct. The medical
profession was divided, but the leading bodies concerned were not. The Royal College of Obstetricians
and Gynaecologists gave us very clear guidance, but that guidance was ignored. In addition, I recall that
the British Medical Association had carried out an inquiry into the subject. I believe that the present
director, Dr. Havard, was a member of that working group, as was Dr. Gullick. They, too, gave clear
guidance. But it is the business of Parliament to make up its mind on these matters and nothing that the
hon. Gentleman has said weakens my argument that Parliament's failure to realise what was at stake led
to serious difficulties.
In those early debates I repeatedly warned that the legislation would lead to abortion on demand, and I
was quite right. [HON. MEMBER: "No."] I was indeed right, because the law has allowed abortion on
demand. That is how it has been interpreted by a great many doctors. [Interruption.] We shall
not make much progress if there is a running commentary on every speech. I listened in silence to the
speech of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East because I respect her greatly and wished
to hear what she had to say. Constant interruptions merely show a lack of conviction that one knows
what it is all about; such chatter does not help parliamentary debate.
Week after week following the enactment of the Bill, anxiety increased at the practices developing. For
example, there were taxi touts at London airport picking up foreign women who wished to take
advantage of the new law. Those women were driven to abortion clinics which were able to pay the
drivers generously out of the fat earnings which they were making from frightened women. I agree
entirely that the whole matter should have been under the proper direction of the National Health Service
from the start, and I said so at the time. It was not, and racket after racket developed. Taxi touts were
even stealing girls from other clinics. One driver took girls to a clinic in Bournemouth although they had
been booked for operations at a clinic in London.
Such was the public outrage and the ensuing row in Parliament that the Government were forced to set
up the Lane committee. That committee consisted entirely of people who had originally favoured
abortion on request, just as the more recent Warnock committee was made up of people who favoured
the use of the human embryo as a guinea pig. Such was the weight of evidence, however, that the Lane
committee was forced to admit that some doctors were practising abortion on demand. The fact that its
members advocated no steps to prevent such practices was simply a measure of their views. They were
also forced to admit that there was disappointingly little evidence to suggest that the legislation had
stopped criminal abortions. [Interruption.] The report is in the Library if any hon. Member
wishes to consult it.

Mrs. Clywd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give
way?

Sir Bernard Braine: No, I wish to develop my
argument. I am dealing with matters that arose in the House long before the hon. Lady became a
Member.

Mr. David Steel: The right hon. Gentleman will
accept that I was here at that time. I hope that he intends to quote the main finding of the Lane
committee, which was that the advantage gained from the legislation far outweighed any criticisms that
could be levelled against it.

Sir Bernard Braine: If the right hon. Gentleman had
been here earlier he would have heard me say that in my view his Bill was necessary and that certain
advantages flowed from it for that very reason. The Lane committee said that. Interestingly, however,
increasing public disquiet led the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. White) to introduce the
Abortion (Amendment) Bill which led in turn to the establishment of the Select Committee on Abortion,
of which I was a member. That Select Committee, chaired by a distinguished Labour Member, exposed
the fact that abortion on demand was virtually the order of the day. The evidence clearly established the
fact.

Mrs. Clywd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give
way?

Sir Bernard Braine: I am telling the House what the
Select Committee recommended. When I have done that I shall give way, although I know that many of
my hon. Friends wish to speak. [Interruption.] This method of conducting the debate does not
help us to make progress.
The Select Committee not only exposed the fact that abortion on demand was the order of the day, but
suggested a number of amendments to the Act to ease the situation. One involved the severing of
financial links between abortion clinics and referral agencies. The Committee also advocated
strengthening the conscience clause and urged that Parliament be given ample time to debate and vote
on the criteria for abortion to establish whether we wished the law to be changed.
It is to the everlasting shame of the Government of the day that they failed to implement the main
recommendations of the Select Committee. Moreover, it is dishonest of the pro-abortion lobby to claim
that repeated efforts to change the law in Parliament have failed. They have failed for one reason alone
— the perpetual and successful attempts to talk out every private Member's Bill.
We must not declare that the Abortion Act has achieved nothing. However, one of its achievements is
nothing to be proud of. It has resulted in the denial of life to some 2 million unborn children. In fact,
while this debate is taking place, some 60 babies will be deprived of the right to life.
Ironically, the Warnock committee was set up to deal with the problem of infertility. Infertility has
always been with us, but the problem has been thrust into the foreground because the natural and
laudable desire of childless couples to adopt has been frustrated as there are no more babies available
because, under the law, we are killing them in increasing numbers.
There is another tragedy associated with infertility. It must be a very bitter thing for some women to
have to bear. Few of us can claim to have done nothing in life to cause us regrets. I know that I cannot.
But comparatively few of us have to live with the fruits of our misdemeanours. What must make
infertility hard to bear is the fact that in many cases it is avoidable. Many cases


of blockage to the tubes, for example, are avoidable. It is often caused by infection, which can result
from previous abortion or sexually transmitted disease. Secondly, while I believe in contraception, I
wonder how many women fitted with the coil realise that it can make them barren.
One of the most appalling aspects of women's right to choose, as it is often expressed, is the fact that
they are not properly informed about what they are choosing. That is why I have always argued that
there should be no connection whatever between abortion referral agencies and abortion clinics,
because the one has a financial interest in the other.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East put her finger on the point long ago. If we are to
have proper, therapeutic abortion in this country, it should have been controlled from the beginning
under the NHS.
People complain about the way things are going, but refuse to see what is happening under their very
eyes. They refuse to see that the cheap and shoddy rarely supplies the answer.
I refer again to the original abortion debates. One of the reasons put forward by the abortionists for
liberalising the law was that by doing so they would reduce the number of unwanted children and level
off—that was an often-used phrase—the rate of illegitimacy. In vain we said that killing
babies in the womb would hardly lead to a more responsible society in which children would receive
more love. We were right to say that. The numbers of children in care were not reduced after the
abortion law came into operation. On the contrary, the numbers have risen by leaps and bounds.
Between 1951 and 1967 the numbers rose by fewer than 7,000, from 62,700 to 69,300. In the 10 years
after the Act came into operation, the numbers rose at an unprecedented rate and hit the 100,000 mark,
where they remain today.
Pro-abortionists give every possible reason for this rise — and I would agree that our liberal
divorce law has something to do with it—but the fact is that every other country which has
liberalised its abortion laws has witnessed a similar increase in child
tragedies.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give
way?

Sir Bernard Braine: In so short a debate, I shall not
enter into an argument on the causes. However, there is no scrap of evidence from anywhere in the
world to support the claim by the pro-abortionists that their policies result in greater love and care for
born children and that we are overcoming the tragedy of unwanted children. All the evidence suggests
the reverse.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give
way?

Sir Bernard Braine: I wish to be brief, to give others a
chance to speak. I end by asking a simple question: where should we go from here?

Mrs. Clwyd: The right hon. Gentleman said earlier
that he would give way when he had developed his argument. If he is interested in evidence, he might
like to know that I was a member of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service. We gave
evidence to his Government and pointed out that far from abortion being available on demand the
reverse was true. It is now more difficult to get an abortion under the NHS. According to the latest
figures available, those for 1983, only 49 per

cent. of women in this country who had abortions had an abortion on the NHS. How can the right hon.
Gentleman say that we have abortion on demand?

Sir Bernard Braine: I am talking about abortion not on
the NHS, but in the private sector. The hon. Lady has been so anxious to intervene that she has not
listened to what I have been saying.
We started off on the wrong foot. From the beginning, therapeutic abortion based on clear-cut
criteria—and the criteria were certainly not as clear-cut as they should have been—
should have been performed within the NHS. The whole matter could then have been properly
controlled. It was not, and, overnight, abortion clinics sprang up by the score. The racket was so great
that the Lane committee had to be set up. Even then the racket failed to disappear. There was then the
Bill of the hon. Member for Pollok. There followed the setting-up of the Select Committee. The hon.
Lady was not a Member of the House at the time and cannot remember what intense anxiety there was
both in the House and the country.

Mrs. Renée Short: The right hon. Gentleman
keeps referring to abortion on demand and the need for better services under the NHS. I cannot recall
whether, when I introduced a ten-minute Bill in 1981 appealing for an extension of NHS facilities, the
right hon. Gentleman voted for it. Can he tell me whether he did or not?

Sir Bernard Braine: I would not like to give an answer
off the cuff. However, I once served in the Ministry of Health and have always been a strong supporter
of the concept of the National Health Service. In 1966 the leaders of the medical profession were
concerned about two things: first, to whom the task was to be entrusted; and, secondly, where it was to
be done. They said that there was no need for complicated legislation. If strict rules were laid down on
those two points the matter could be left to the medical profession. By that they meant that at least one
of the two doctors concerned should be a consultant and also that there should be the strictest possible
control over where the operation was done.
If that had been our aim from the outset, we would probably not have been discussing the subject
today. However, the decision was made not to entrust the task to two medical practitioners, one of
whom would have to be a consultant. And so, presumably because of the fear of strain upon the NHS,
the greater part of the demand was met by the mushroom growth of clinics, with all the abuses that I
have mentioned.
I should like to recommend a number of courses of action. At the appropriate time the Government
should give the House adequate time to debate an amending Bill. That is unlikely to be in the present
Session, but the Government should be prepared to help an amending Bill through, so that it cannot be
talked out by its opponents. Only in that way shall we see whether or not Parliament wishes to retain the
present law unamended.
In my view, the grounds for abortion in the present Act should be more carefully defined to stop
abortion on demand. I believe that that result could be achieved by the addition of two words to the
Act. We should also put an end to the hypocrisy of allowing the referral agencies to advertise so that
they can refer women to clinics in which they have a financial interest. All financial links between referral
agencies and clinics should be severed. That


should apply equally to those clinics described as charities, from which doctors take home the bulk of
the large fees of patients who have abortions.
The conscience clause should be strengthened. In addition, something should be done to help those
genuine charities and agencies which offer positive assistance to girls with problem pregnancies. It is
scandalous that abortion clinics should be receiving help from local authorities, while agencies which
look after girls who wish to keep their babies receive no Government grants.
The Government should also take a positive stand to ensure that under-age girls are not aborted without
parental consent. A dentist in this country is not allowed to extract a tooth from a young patient without
parental consent, yet the entrepreneurs of the abortion business are allowed to carry out an operation on
a young girl which could blight her entire life and leave her sterile. Indeed, if we look at the abortion
figures, we cannot fail to realise that those most in need of protection—the young—have
become more and more vulnerable. Abortions on girls under 16 increased from 2,619 in 1969 to 10,555
in 1983–8 per cent. of all abortions in England and Wales.
Great play has been made of the fluctuations in the number of abortions on girls in this group since
1978. Frankly, this means nothing at all as the total number of girls aged 13 to 15 has declined, while the
number of abortions has remained constant at about four per 1,000 girls in this age bracket. That is a
very sad commentary on the state of affairs in this country.
During the last election some of the leaders and spokesmen of my own party made great play of the
importance that we attach to the family unit and our concern for the young and
unborn—

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman said that he would
be brief.

Sir Bernard Braine: Indeed, but I assure the hon.
Gentleman that many Opposition Members share my view.
If, in fact, the Government are concerned about the family, children and the unborn, and intend to keep
faith on this, they should give Parliament the time fully to debate the abortion law so that any
amendments have the opportunity of reaching the statute book.

Mr. David Alton: There is no point in my disguising my
sincerely held belief on this issue, and I hope that the House will bear with me as I attempt to make a
number of brief points. I am opposed to abortion and always have been. There is no point in saying that
had I been in the House in 1967 I would have supported the legislation of my right hon. Friend the
Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), because I would have been in the opposite
Lobby. He and I have had many disagreements on this issue, although I respect his sincerity.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) spoke of my right hon. Friend's intention when
he introduced the Bill. It was to turn the tide of human misery. I know that my right hon. Friend
intended to address himself to the question of back-street abortions. I have no simple, easy answer to
that problem and am well aware that because of my position I am open to the

argument that without an abortion provision on the statute book there could well be a return to the
back-street abortion.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point also referred to the Lane commission. That led me to recall that
in 1980 I introduced a ten-minute Bill on the termination of pregnancies and whether, as the hon.
Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) pointed out, termination should be allowed to
occur beyond 24 weeks.
During that debate I quoted Mrs. Justice Lane's committee, which said:
Informed opinion is, and the Committee agrees, that a maximum gestational age of 28 weeks
for abortion is too high, having regard to modern methods of sustaining prematurely-born
infants".
Elsewhere in the committee's recommendations it stated
that the Abortion Act should be amended to authorise abortion up to the twenty-fourth week
of pregnancy and not thereafter".
In fact, The Guardian commented that two out of every 1,000 abortions which take place do so
on developing children between the ages of 24 and 28 weeks. That goes some way towards answering
the interjection made in the speech of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle.
I believe that this is something on which the House could agree, and I know that my right hon. Friend
the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale is very much of a view that at the very minimum
there ought to be a reduction from 28 to 24 weeks. It is something on which he and I agree. Indeed, my
right hon. Friend was a sponsor of my Bill. The World Health Organisation takes a similar view.
I am conscious that we are going over arguments that have been rehearsed before, but that is inevitable.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) said that she had heard these
arguments before, but when 162,000 abortions take place each year it is inevitable that this House
should want to continue to discuss the legislation and the way in which it is working. It would be
surprising if it did not, given the sincerely held views of hon. Members and their constituents, apart
from the fact that our constituents would require us, as their representatives, to raise these important
issues.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Does not the hon. Gentleman accept
that many operations are performed in this country, yet he is distinguishing between this one and the
others? However, the Act has given some consideration to the 162,000 women who would otherwise
have been placed in difficulty.

Mr. Alton: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's latter
point in a moment. Like him, if I were concerned that insufficient was being done to help people who
needed kidney transplants or those with cardiac complaints, and if I felt that the NHS was not helping
them or that the system was not operating as it should, I would want to raise such matters in this House.
However, when discussing a sincerely-held view among many people outside this House that too many
abortions are taking place, it is legitimate for hon. Members to return to this issue. I hope that the hon.
Gentleman will accept the sincerity of those who seek to raise the matter in this way.
Last week, a group of Liverpool women came to see me about the general problems that women face. I
accept that society does not treat women in the dignified way that it should, and that many of the
prejudices and taboos about


women and their place in society have placed women at a lower level than men. That is something to
which we must address our minds.
Those women told me of a recent survey of women at Liverpool university who had undergone
abortions. It showed that had a creche been available for under two-year-olds, 14 per cent. of the
women would have been happy to go ahead with their pregnancies. Perhaps we can do something about
that. If some people genuinely have abortions for such simple reasons, we ought to make adequate
provision for women in that position.
To some of my fellow Roman Catholic churchmen I say that attitudes on birth control, which
sometimes seem to have more to do with the Middle Ages than with life in contemporary Britain and the
centre of places such as Liverpool, are undoubtedly one of the reasons why people have abortions. I
hope that they will address themselves to that problem.
Like the right hon. Member for Castle Point, I also believe that there is a desperate need for more
counselling facilities. There is also a need for more tolerance among families who reject their pregnant
daughters and cast them on to the streets. Up to 30 per cent. of people living in parts of my
constituency are single parents with one child, then two, who find themselves on the rackety road to
ruin as they get lured into things such as prostitution.
We have already heard about a woman's right to choose, and women will ultimately make that decision
whether they come within the system or are forced to use the back-street abortionist. However, many of
us also believe that the developing child has rights. For purely philosophical and ideological reasons
rather than reasons of religious conviction, I believe that the liberty of the individual is paramount. It is
because I place such a high price on the rights of the individual that I take the view that I have just
expressed.
There is a strange contrast between this debate and the one which will take place on Friday. That
contrast concerns the premium that we place on life, the reflections of the Warnock committee, which
has examined the whole question of in vitro fertilisation, and the Bill to be introduced by the right hon.
Member for South Down (Mr. Powell).
A few weeks ago, a child psychologist and a doctor addressed a group of hon. Members at a forum
held in one of the Committee rooms. The right hon. Member for Castle Point, who was present, will
recall that during that discussion we were told that in London medical students were now paid
£12 for sperm which is used to father up to six different children. That is £2 per
child. The problems that they may cause to those children later in terms of a possible identity crisis over
parentage—

Ms. Clare Short: That is out of order. Why not wait
until Friday?

Mr. Alton: It is not out of order. I shall come to the
point when I relate it to today's debate.

Ms. Harriet Harman: The hon.
Gentleman's local newspaper probably comes out tomorrow, not
Saturday.

Mr. Alton: The hon. Lady is mistaken. I assure her
that there are as many people in my constituency who take

the same view as she does, whom it would be easier for me to placate by not speaking, as there are
those who maintain my view. It is wrong to try to ascribe such motives to hon. Members who have
sincerely held views.
In the discussions that took place last week, many hon. Members listened to remarks, which concerned
us all, about what would happen as a result of the in vitro fertilisation methods that are to be introduced.
On Friday, we shall be having a debate about people bringing children into the world scientifically, as a
result of methods that we shall place on the statute book. Today, we are talking about ways in which to
remove the rights of children to be born. There is an odd and stark contrast. It is right that the hon.
Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle has given us a chance to discuss the other side of the
equation, and it helps to put into some perspective the debate that we shall be having on
Friday.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I declare an interest, in that I am
president of the Brook Advisory Centre, which counsels not only on birth control but on whether
pregnancy should be terminated. As I did medicine and set up birth control clinics at about the time that
the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) was wrecking the law of
Scotland in this respect, I have always had a particular interest in these matters. Without attempting to
upset him —beautifully groomed as he ever is—I shall tell the House how the Abortion
Act 1967 came about.
In Scotland there was a perfectly satisfactory law, the common law. It was exactly the same as the
common law that governs every other medical condition. In other words, if I go to my doctor and ask
him to cut off my ears, he will advise me that he does not think that it is in my interest to do so if I do
not have leprosy, but it is if I do. The decision whether to terminate a pregnancy was, in Scotland, a
matter of common law.
Until the week of the wretched 1967 Act, passed for England and Wales and extended to Scotland,
there had never been a prosecution of a doctor or medical person in Scotland. I acted for the only
person who ever was prosecuted, until he did not turn up for trial. It was quite proper that this person
was prosecuted and pled guilty, because he did an unprofessional operation without anaesthetic on a
woman to terminate her pregnancy, and sent her home on a tram, and in a condition in which she was
still subject to the likelihood of septicaemia. Therefore, it was proper that he should have been
prosecuted. However, that was the only prosecution for the termination of a pregnancy in
Scotland.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman
implying that no illegal abortions were carried out in Scotland? Does he not realise that there were quite
a number of deaths from abortions in Scotland?

Mr. Fairbairn: I am sorry if I did not make myself
clear, and I am glad to be able to be able to do so now. That was the only prosecution of a medically
trained person for the termination of a pregnancy. Many people were prosecuted in Scotland for
improper, non-medical abortions, just as someone would be prosecuted in Scotland if a person came
along and asked him to pull out his teeth and he proceeded to do so with a pair of pliers. That would be
an assault.
At that time there was a desire for change in England because, under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act
1929, quite a large number of medically trained people had been prosecuted in England and sentenced
to terms of imprisonment. It was to get over that difficulty that, when the then newly born foetus from
Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles arrived in the House, the midwife stuffed into his hand, when he won the
ballot, the Abortion Bill that became the Abortion Act 1967.
Having done that, and realising that it would look a little odd if this new tartan fairy were to cure the law
of England, having been elected for a Scottish seat, he applied it to Scotland and ruined a perfectly
satisfactory law. Interestingly enough, although Scotland has a much bigger proportion of Roman
Catholics than any other part of the United Kingdom, there was never any complaint about the common
law of Scotland and its application. If I were to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and
Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) to say anything, it would be to say that he would have the words, "This Act
does not apply to Scotland" put at the end of the 1967 Act.

Mr. David Steel: As always, the hon. and learned
Gentleman is entertaining and inaccurate. He may recall that in 1966–67 Professor Sir Dugald
Baird, who was the chief exponent of a liberal abortion law in Scotland, was in the Aberdeen health
area, the only one to which the law which the hon. and learned Gentleman is describing applied.
Professor Sir Dugald Baird told me that the reason for this was that a Lord Advocate of a few years
before had sent round a circular to consultants in Scotland saying that they were liable for prosecution
for carrying out abortions. It was because of that threat, arising out of the uncertainty of the common
law hanging over doctors, that Sir Dugald Baird was one of those who advised me strongly to include
Scotland in the Act.

Mr. Fairbairn: That is a strange recollection. I
remember trying to persuade the right hon. Gentleman not to extend the Act to Scotland, and I
personally addressed the Royal College of Physicians, with Professor Sir Dugald Baird in the chair, on
the law of Scotland and on abortion. He did not take that view then or in any of the correspondence that
I had with him afterwards.

Dr. M. S. Miller: My experience in general practice in
the years before the Abortion Act was passed totally conflicts with the views expressed by the hon. and
learned Gentleman. I was never able to have an abortion terminated for a patient by referring her to any
hospital. No gynaecologist in Glasgow would perform abortions except in the most serious
circumstances.

Mr. Fairbairn: That may be the hon. Gentleman's
recollection of his private practice in Glasgow, and practice varied throughout the country, but, as
Professor Sir Dugald Baird demonstrated, the law was satisfactory.
I introduced birth control clinics into Scotland and I am anxious about this matter because of what I
have come across in my legal practice. I spent part of my time divorcing people who had married in the
first place only because there was an unintentional pregnancy. I spent a great deal of my time in the High
Court with children who had been unintentionally conceived and whose parents were not emotionally
capable of looking after them. It was never the last child, but always the one in the middle. My practice
involving this catalogue of misfortunes arose out of unintended pregnancies.
The difficulty which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle gets into when he
starts talking about the limitation of time period is that of the consistency of those who say that the
correction of a mistake is forbidden, that the mistake is hidden or denied until later and later in the
pregnancy. People say, "Perhaps I have missed my period, but it may be natural," and they say that
about the next one as well, and so on. Unintended conception is a mistake. The parties may have used a
contraceptive method which did not work, or they may have made a miscalculation. If a woman
becomes pregnant unintentionally, is it right for this House to say that that is a mistake which she is not
allowed to correct? That seems to me to be a strange moral judgment.
People talk about the right to life of the unintended foetus. The unintended foetus did not have a choice
whether it should be unintendedly conceived in the first place, so why should it have a right not to be
intendedly disconceived thereafter?

Mr. Nicholls: No hon. Members have yet said in the
debate that they would ban abortion entirely in all circumstances. It is simply that, for a combination of
practical politics and personal morality, they are saying that there should be fewer circumstances in
which abortion should be allowed—not that it should be abolished.

Mr. Fairbairn: I appreciate that, but what I am trying
to stress—it is very important and rarely understood—is the psychological barrier facing
a woman who becomes pregnant unintentionally. The barrier is such that she tends to defer the taking of
any action. If she were able legitimately, and with public approval, to correct the mistake when it was
made, she would not face the difficulty later of getting into the period of gestation before any operation
was performed.
I agree with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) that it is disgraceful that a
woman who is referred to a consultant under the National Health Service can be held responsible for the
lateness of the proposed abortion. I agree that the later the termination, the more difficult it becomes. I
am in favour of very early abortion, but that can be achieved only if the moral climate alters and we
move away from the idea that abortion, even if it is permitted by the 1967 Act, is wrong.
In looking round the Chamber—not, of course, this evening—one may well feel that
from time to time a good many mistaken conceptions have taken place. There is no other mistake in
human activity which we do not think it right to try to correct. What is wrong with correcting that one?

Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Before commenting on the speech
of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), I should like first to refer to one
or two of the points made by the mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Gainsborough and
Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). There seemed to be one or two contradictions in his speech.
The hon. Member referred to the sacredness of all human life. In looking round the Chamber, I noted
that most of the Conservative Members who accept that view are in favour of capital punishmment.
Either human life is sacred or it is not. It cannot be said that it is sacred in some circumstances and not
in others.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Hamilton: In view of the limited time available, I
hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand if I do not give way to him.
Another point that the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle made has been mentioned
frequently in all the debates on legislation dealing with abortion—that nurses and other people
have been persecuted and even dismissed because of the exercise of their conscience. Whenever that
has been alleged, we have asked for one such case to be produced. No one, in any circumstances
whatever, has been able to produce a case of a nurse or anyone else in the medical profession who has
been dismissed for the exercise of conscience under the 1967 Act.
The hon. Gentleman asserted that there is no such thing as an unwanted child. I wish that were so, but
we live in the real world and we know that there are unwanted children. There are many women
throughout Britain and throughout the world who find that they are pregnant and who, for whatever
reason, do not want to bear the child for very good reasons. The ultimate test must be the consultation
between the patient and her general practitioner, and the law should be at a minimum in dealing with that
relationship.
The right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) laid rather more stress than did the mover of the
motion on the development of private clinics. I think that we are all agreed on the undesirability of such
a development, but the only possible acceptable alternative is the improvement of facilities within the
National Health Service. The answer is not to abolish all such clinics but to improve NHS facilities. I
hope that the Minister will give the House some assurance in that respect.
Throughout the country public opinion, no matter what people's political or religious persuasion may
be, is massively in support of the way that the 1967 Act is operating. There may be a case for
considering a time limit for abortion. I served on Standing Committees which dealt with two abortion
Bills. The right hon. Member for Castle Point will remember them vividly. Those Bills were talked out of
existence. I think we were right to do that, because public opinion was massively on our side.
It is right that minorities should express their opinion. I understand that a petition containing
1·5 million signatures is to be presented by a Conservative Member. There are another 55
million signatures that are not on the petition. Let us not be under any illusion as to the strength of
feeling on abortion. Minorities have a right to be heard but the majority have the right to prevail.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle was right not to lay too much emphasis on the
grounds for abortion. I do not think that there is an authoritative body, in the medical profession or
anywhere else, in support of any tightening up of that part of the 1967 Act. The main argument relates to
a time limit. There may be a case for that. However, even if it is set at 24 weeks, there will always be
cases where, for one reason or another, exceptions will have to be made. For that reason, the greater the
flexibility in the legislation the better.
The 1967 Act does not lay down a period of 28 weeks or any other period, and that is for a good
reason. There

is a degree of flexibility to enable the medical profession to examine and treat each case on its merits.
The less we do about changing that the better.
We are all against late abortions; indeed, we are all against all abortions. It is a horrible operation. At the
weekend I was talking to a doctor who does abortions and he said that there is not a more undesirable
operation, because it is an expression of failure. But if we can do anything in this House to eliminate that
failure, it will bring happiness to many women and many families who would not otherwise have it. We
legislate in this place for the sake of humanity. We legislate to make practices more humane than they
would otherwise be. Whatever this House does, women will have abortions. They have had them over
the centuries. It is up to us to make the operation more humane by putting on the statute book
legislation which is flexible and which recognises the human problems that lie behind
abortion.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I shall
not take up too much time by going over points that have already been made, especially as some of my
comments may be almost identical to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and
Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).
I should make it clear that I am not against abortion per se. In whatever proposals I might make, I am
not working towards a day when abortion will be completely abolished. Whatever my private and
personal views may be, other people will hold different views, and on this subject—perhaps
more than on any other—one tries to achieve a consensus.
Two points need to be made. First, it concerns me that the word "abortion" seems to be caught up with
the concept of contraception and birth control. That is extremely dangerous. Hardly anyone would now
argue against contraception, but in talking about abortion we are not talking about contraception.
Contraception ensures that human life or conception does not occur. Despite the argument that the
spermatozoa and ova are alive, there is no human life until they are fused at conception. Thus, even a
hard-line Roman Catholic — if I can use that phrase in a non-pejorative sense — who
might be opposed to both abortion and contraception, would probably admit that one of them is much
worse than the other.
It must be recognised that abortion is ultimately a form of population control. Whatever the motives
may be, it terminates human life. That is not the same as preventing that life from forming in the first
place.

Dr. M. S. Miller: The hon. Gentleman argues that
human life begins at the moment of conception. But what are sperm and ova if they are not human life?
What does he call them?

Mr. Nicholls: I call them on the one hand sperm and
on the other ova, but they are not human life. The hon. Gentleman has asked a question so he must
listen to the answer. Until they are fused, they are not human life which, unless it is interrupted by nature
or some other physical event, will inexorably lead to a birth —[Interruption.] The hon.
Gentleman goes on heckling from a sedentary position, but if he does not like the answer to his question
he could at least have the courtesy to listen to it in relative silence.
Secondly, we are used to referring to the 1967 Act and to the fact that it liberalised abortion or allowed
it in certain circumstances, as though that Act was the complete source of our abortion law. But it is
not. It has to be read in conjunction with the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929. Subsections (1) and
(2) of that Act say that if the gestation period is more than 28 weeks, it is assumed that the child is
capable of being born alive. In combination, those two Acts form the basis of our abortion law. When
the 1929 Act spoke of 28 weeks, it did so because at that time it was not expected that a child could be
born alive before then. In law, capable of being born alive was not even taken to mean capable of
surviving. I hope that the one common ground uniting us all is that 28 weeks can no longer be
considered appropriate.

Ms. Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman has touched on
a crucial point that is frequently misunderstood. It is not the case that it would be legal to abort a foetus
that was capable of life, even if it was less than 28 weeks old. It is illegal to kill any foetus that is capable
of being born alive. That is the law. Therefore, many of the arguments for reducing the 28-week period
represent a misunderstanding of the present law.

Mr. Nicholls: I suspect that this will be the first and
last time, even in this Parliament, that I say that the hon. Lady and I are in total agreement on a
point.
The essence of that Act was the capability of being born alive and not the period of 28 weeks. The
difficulty is that in practice the exception becomes the norm. It would be a brave, optimistic and,
probably, well-heeled man, who would tell a doctor, who had gone through the procedures under the
Act and who had aborted a foetus at 23 weeks, that he was to be subjected to a private prosecution
claiming that at that age the child was capable of being born alive. That is the difficulty.
I think that I have correctly identified the source of the abortion law. We have moved a long way since
1929, and it is now obvious that a child is capable of being born alive at 28 weeks. It is not just a
question of making a slight advance involving a week here or there. It is now possible for a child to be
born alive at 23 weeks and, moreover, for it to survive. In such debates, the evidence inevitably tends to
become anecdotal, and is sometimes no worse for that. But here the evidence is better than that.
On 10 March 1984 an article appeared in The Lancet entitled, "Capable of Being Born Alive".
Mr. Dunn and Mr. Stirrat of the Bristol maternity hospital reviewed the state of the law as we all
understand it to be. A footnote to that article read:
At the time of writing two infants of 23 weeks gestation are in our care, one now being
2½ weeks old the other 1 week old.
I do not know whether those two children even survived the date of publication, but if they did, there
cannot be the slightest doubt that the child who survived two and half weeks was capable not only of
being born alive but of surviving.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will make a statement along the following lines.
If those two statutes taken in combination are properly the foundation of our abortion law, it cannot be
right that that 28-week guideline — I hestitate to use that word for reasons that the hon. Member
for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) would correct me for — with all the implications that it
has, should still be valid. If we are

concerned to get our abortion laws right, something must be done, sooner rather than later, to ensure
that that time limit is reduced.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central, (Mr. Hamilton) spoke about the sacredness of human life, and that
is right. He might have correctly identified me as being one of those who are in favour of capital
punishment and in favour of strengthening or, as he might have it, of deliberalising our abortion laws.
We could both argue until we were blue in the face, but neither of us would be convinced that the other
was right. But I would argue that a person can forfeit his right to life by a crime so heinous that he
should be subject to a capital penalty. But ingenious though the mind of a lawyer is, I cannot begin to
conceive of how a foetus that has yet to be born can have committed some crime that requires its
extinction. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point was no good.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central also spoke about the elimination of unhappiness. Again, that unites
us. I am not arguing in favour of the abolition of abortion. With all due respect, however, the hon.
Gentleman will have to do better than talk about the elimination of unhappiness. In talking about
eliminating unhappiness, we are talking about eliminating human life. To consider the woman's
happiness does not mean to say that one can simply ignore the fact that the child will be subject not just
to unhappiness but to death.
Where do we go from here? We are entitled to say that the legislaion under which abortions are
performed should be tightened up in view of what we now know about foetology. There is also a job to
be done in terms of educating the public, and especially the child-bearing public, about exactly what is
involved in an abortion. It is not just a question of going into hospital and having an anonymous
collection of cells removed. If a woman has an abortion by vacuum aspiration, she is committing herself
to allowing the child within her to be dismembered. If that is the sort of thing that abortion involves, the
public should know about it. If a woman, knowing that, still goes ahead with an abortion, she has at
least done so with her eyes open. I hope that a film such as "The Silent Scream" will be broadcast on
ITV and BBC with all the counterbalancing propaganda that I am sure that the hon. Member for
Ladywood will be able to provide.

Ms. Clare Short: That film is completely
fabricated.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Lady howls that the film is
fabricated. The death of the child certainly is fabricated, but if it is such a monstrous fabrication, I can
see no reason why it should not be given air space so that the hon. Lady can produce her arguments to
prove that it is fabricated.
Since 1967, 2¼ million babies have been killed before being born but after conception. In only
2 per cent. of the cases were the mothers' lives at risk or the babies seriously deformed. In 98 per cent.
of the cases, therefore, the babies were killed because under the Abortion Act 1967 one can have one's
child killed for what amounts to little more than the fact that one finds it inconvenient to bear it or
because it might be inconvenient to its existing brothers and sisters. In a civilised society, we cannot
allow that to continue indefinitely.

Ms. Jo Richardson: The hon.
Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has just made the most


unbelievably, incredibly patronising speech. He talked about educating the child-bearing population. It is
about time that he and some of his hon. Friends were educated. The trouble with this House is that it is
dominated by males who think that they know what is best for women.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) is one of a string of hon. Members
who have said that the Abortion Act brings to the country an air of permissiveness, a lowering of moral
standards and a diminution in the sanctity of the family. He and others suggest that the Act allows
abortion on demand. That is not true. They say that women frivolously use abortion as a contraceptive.
That is not true either. They say that the tightening up of this already limited legislation will ensure a rosy
picture of happier and more stable parents and children. Nothing is further from the truth.
As everyone in the House knows, abortion has existed since the beginning of time. Throughout history,
wealthy women have always been able to have abortions without problems or questions; they simply
had to provide the money. No comfortable place in a private clinic was open to those without money.
Poorer women had two options. Their first was to continue the pregnancy and have an unwanted child.
It is not true that children are always wanted when they arrive. Their second option was to have a
back-street abortion—a messy and dangerous practice which I am glad to say has almost
disappeared. However, I fear that it may be on the way back if some Conservative Members have their
way.
Many figures have been quoted, and I want to put mine on the record. The number of abortions on
residents in England and Wales fell each year between 1980 and 1983. However, in the first half of 1984
the number increased by 3,052–5 per cent.—compared with the first half of 1983. That
rise occurred in the 16 to 29 age group. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has pointed
out that this took place about three to five months after the publication in the previous October of
papers associating certain malignant diseases with the long-term use of oral contraceptives. It is obvious
that many women were frightened by the pill scares and changed to less reliable means of
contraception. The result was more unwanted pregnancies and more abortions.
It is more important to consider the rate of abortions rather than the numbers, because the rate takes
account of the increases and decreases in the numbers of women in the fertile age group.
The abortion rate has remained at or under 12 women per thousand for the past 13 years. That is one of
the lowest abortion rates in the world, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd)
said. It is remarkable that it has remained so steady. It shows that women are using contraception in the
most effective way possible. There is no foolproof method of contraception. Women are not using
abortion as a method of contraception. Abortion is used only in the most dire circumstances —
when contraception has failed or when conception is the result of an unplanned act.
Much has been made of the number of abortions performed on young women between the ages of 16
and 29 who are not married and have no children. The implication is that all such women are fit and
healthy and that they should have babies or, if they do not want babies, that they should bear them and
offer them for adoption.

Many hon. Members have said that. It is an odd argument, because many of those who use it are now
holding up their hands in horror at the idea of surrogacy. They suggest that everyone should go through
with an unplanned pregnancy to term and then offer the child for adoption, but when it comes to
surrogacy they say, "No, we cannot have that." I do not understand their argument.
The House should take account of the trends. Women are no longer prepared to put up with a
pregnancy that they do not want and with which they cannot cope. Many women want to plan a family.
They want to develop their talents, to work and to earn a living before having a family. Few women now
feel compelled to marry if they become pregnant. In 1969, about 44·5 per cent. of pregnant
women married before the child was born. In most cases, they were shotgun marriages. In 1981 the
figure was 19 per cent.—a much healthier figure.
Society no longer condemns a woman for having an illegitimate child. That is another reason why
women do not feel that it is necessary to marry. Many women categorised as single live with their
partner in a stable relationship. They simply do not think it important to marry. In 1982, 59 per cent. of
illegitimate births were jointly registered. Parliament must take account of changes in attitudes and values
and in the way in which people live.
Births and abortions to under 16-year-olds since 1974, when contraceptives were made freely available
to all, regardless of age, have remained static. At least, they have up to now. Abortions for women in
that age group have remained at under 10 in 1,000 since 1974. The rate of live births in that age group
has been at or under three in 1,000 since 1974. The number of illegitimate births has risen as young girls
have decided to keep their children, because they believe that society will tolerate that decision.
An acute danger to that stable position now hangs over young girls and their doctors. I refer to the
recent judgment by the Appeal Court which stops girls under 16 from getting help from their doctors
without the express consent of their parents. Lord Justice Parker, one of the Appeal Court judges, said
that that might lead to pregnancy, backstreet abortion or even death.
On 8 February, The Times reported that the British Medical Association had received
information that two young girls were alleged to have committed suicide as a result of not receiving the
contraceptive advice that they sought. One was a girl who was sexually assaulted by her father, and who
learnt that she could not obtain contraceptive advice without her mother knowing of it. The other was a
12-year-old girl who sought advice, but her parents objected. They are reported to have taken their
lives. Is that really what Conservative Members want?
Perhaps hon. Members with teenage daughters have a close and understanding relationship with them. I
hope so. If so, they are fortunate, because many do not have that relationship. Many daughters do not
feel that they can discuss sex with their parents. Family situations vary enormously, and there is often
conflict in the home which creates a tense atmosphere in which young girls find it difficult to talk about
matters at that time in their development. Therefore, they need access to their doctors.
Under-16s are badly frightened and feel abandoned. I suppose that that fear and sense of isolation is
viewed by the moralists on the Conservative Benches as a healthy deterrent to young girls under the age
of 16 having sex. Goodness knows how many girls have become pregnant


since the Court of Appeal judgment. The moralists have tabled an early-day motion against abortion for
girls under 16. I am afraid that that will not stop pregnancies. I hope that the Court of Appeal judgment
is changed. Do hon. Members really want no advice, no counselling, no contraception and, if the worst
comes to the worst, no abortion, other than illegal or back-street abortion, for girls under 16?

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: I want girls under 16 to take
advice from their parents and not to obtain contraceptive advice that is not officially allowed because it
is against the law. That would help to bring about a decent family life for those
girls.

Ms. Richardson: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken.
Contraceptive advice for under-16s is not against the law. He overlooks the fact that many girls cannot
and will not discuss it with their parents. They feel that they cannot talk to them. Of course, it would be
preferable if they could, and that is what the counselling service and the doctors advise. If we follow the
advice of Conservative Members, the clock will be turned back.
Almost every day during Question Time we urge girls to make the most of education and employment
opportunities. We tell them to stay at school, get on with their education and grasp the chances to make
something of themselves, yet we deny them the understanding advice and help that would enable them
to view sex in a sensible manner at a difficult time in their lives.
There is little support among the public or the medical profession for restricting the grounds for
abortion. In 1983, the Gallup Poll found that 74 per cent. of the public thought that the decision whether
or not to continue a pregnancy should be left to the woman in consultation with her doctor. Support for
that view has been high since 1979 —never lower than 74 per cent., which is three quarters of
those sampled. The support is high regardless of the age, sex, political opinion or religion of those
polled. There is growing support for a more liberal abortion law that would allow women to make their
own decisions on abortion. In 1979, the National Opinion Poll found that 56 per cent. of people thought
that abortion should be available legally to those who wanted it. That was confirmed in a later NOP
survey in The Sun.
People tend to think that it is easy to obtain an abortion. It is not. Many of my hon. Friends have
pointed out the difficulties that face women and girls seeking abortion. We know of the widespread
concern about the unevenness of NITS provision—from the disgraceful figures in the west
midlands where only 3 to 4 per cent. of women can obtain abortions on the NHS to the 97 per cent.
who can do so in the north of England. It would have become the hon. Member for Gainsborough and
Horncastle more and earned him my respect if part of his motion had referred to the inadequacies of
NHS provision for abortion. That would have been a good point to debate, and preferable to the high
moral tone that the hon. Gentleman chose to take.
A number of different organisations and bodies have taken a similar view about NHS
facilities—for example, the Royal Commission and the Select Committee which considered
abortion in 1981, on which both the right hon. Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and the
Minister's predecessor served. Indeed, the Minister's predecessor expressed his concern that NHS
abortion facilities should be improved. However, those facilities are still not good

enough. Only last month the Women's National Commission working group on health, chaired by Dame
Ann Springman of the Conservative women's national committee, said that where an abortion is
permissible, NHS facilities should be made available at the earliest possible stage and that day care
facilities should be extended. The Labour party's programme gives priority to improving NHS facilities,
including day care, so that choice can be effective wherever the woman lives.
During all the agitation, the pontificating, the attacks on the existing abortion laws and the moralising that
we have heard this evening, nothing has been said about the role of the man. Women are blamed for
needing abortions. It is represented as their fault if they become pregnant —they have not taken
precautions; the precautions have gone wrong so it is bad luck on them; they must bear the agony and
the fear of not finding a doctor willing to help; they must bear the main brunt of an abortion and all the
difficulties that go with it. Nowhere in the argument is the role and the responsibility of the man pointed
out. That was most noticeable in the speech of the hon. Member for Teignbridge. The women are made
to feel blameworthy and guilty. If they cannot cope, people look down on them. They are talked about
as though they did not exist or work in this place. They are continually put down by less than half the
population—the men—who want to decide for them what they should do with their
bodies.
Even in the argument about the under-16s and the recent Court of Appeal judgment, it is the daughters'
difficulties that are exposed and it is their lives that are being endangered. The law actually protects
boys of 14, but they have not been mentioned in our discussion. The House should remember that in
our moralising we must understand that women will not for ever be prepared to go on being unable to
control their fertility and their bodies. They will continue to demand more rights and more of a say in
how they shape their lives.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I begin
by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), first, on
his good fortune in obtaining this allocation of parliamentary time and, secondly, on giving the House
the opportunity to consider this subject again. Since the Abortion Act 1967 was passed the House has
considered its provisions on several occasions and several attempts have been made to introduce
amending legislation, although none has been successful. But it is surprising — it has surprised
me during my time as Minister for Health—that the House has not considered the subject since
1981. The previous occasion on which the House considered it was when the hon. Member for Barking
(Ms. Richardson) introduced a Ten-minute Bill, which did not reach the statute book.
Although some hon. Members criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle,
and although I do not agree with all of his views on this subject, the way in which he put them forward
commanded respect, and I am sure that his reasonable proposition will be supported by many inside
and outside the House.
I must make it clear that the Government, like all their predecessors, are neutral on the great issues of
principle that are raised by abortion. The Government believe that it is for Parliament to decide the law
and to take any opportunity that the majority wishes to change the law. Since Parliament has decided
that abortions may lawfully


be carried out in the circumstances specified in the Act, the Government have a duty to ensure that the
provisions of the law are properly applied. That must remain our view. I have always been a supporter
of the 1967 Act and believed that the way in which it has been applied has, on balance, been beneficial
to society. But as I speak in this debate, because I happen to be the Minister for Health, I shall not take
advantage of the time to discuss at length some of the issues that have been raised, which I might have
done were I not on the Front Bench.
Following the examination of the working of the Act by the Lane committee and later by the Select
Committee on abortion, we now have a strict system of control over the application of the Act. I assure
the House that my Department takes seriously its duties of inspection and control of private clinics. We
monitor closely the operation of the Act, and I assure hon. Members that our monitoring machinery
does not reveal any abuse of it. The Government are satisfied that they are ensuring, to the best of their
ability, that the wishes of Parliament are respected. That means that abortions are being carried out in
proper circumstances and only when the provisions of the Act are satisfied. Obviously, we must strive
to ensure that that continues to be the case.
I and the Government share my hon. Friend's concern that many abortions are still considered
necessary, for the reasons that were expounded by the hon. Member for Barking. The background to
most abortions is at least error, but often it is severe emotional crisis. Abortion is often the cause of
considerable distress and difficulty. The figures for 1981, 1982 and 1983 showed a slight decrease in
the number of abortions. From the best test that can be applied, which is the number of abortions per
thousand women between the ages of 15 and 44, we discover that the rate fell from 12·62 in
1980 to 11·94 in 1983.
It is regrettable that the 1984 figures that we have so far show a slight increase in abortions. No one
knows what caused that, but I share the theory of the hon. Member for Barking that it almost certainly
resulted from the scare that followed last year's reports of possible dangers from the contraceptive pill.
When those stories emerged, we did our best to give proper advice to women, which included asking
them to ensure that they finished the course of contraceptive treatment upon which they had embarked,
and that they took advice about alternative methods of contraception. But it seems likely that some
women, in panic, stopped the course of pills that they were taking or made a mistake in changing to
other methods. Everyone who has spoken in the debate, with whatever views, must hope that the
downward trend which we previously witnessed will soon return and continue.
I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), who put his
views in his usual colourful way, that one of the best things that we can do to reduce the large number
of abortions is to encourage the sensible use of family planning. We do that by the provision of a free
family planning service, which we believe is an essential preventive measure which contributes to the
avoidance of unwanted pregnancy, to the proper spacing and timing of children and, therefore, to better
maternal and child health and to a secure and stable family life. For that reason, we support financially
those voluntary bodies that work in this area and the family planning information service.
The hon. Member for Barking felt free to express her views about the case that has been brought
against the Department by Mrs. Gillick. She will understand that, as the matter is still waiting to go to the
House of Lords, I would rather not be drawn into that discussion. But it is important that that Court of
Appeal decision is appealed, if only to clarify some of the doubts left unanswered by the way in which
the judgment was expressed. This is an important matter for our society, and the highest court in the
land must give a clear ruling on whether the guidance issued by the Department was lawful.
In the brief time that I propose to take in the debate, I shall say a few words about the matter which
most concerned my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle. He was worried, as
were many hon. Members, about the late stage at which some abortions are performed, especially
having regard to the advances in medical techniques of helping premature babies to survive. This matter
has caused anxiety for many years, and it has been considered from time to time since the Lane
committee produced its report. Several hon. Members have accurately described the legal and statistical
position, so I shall not repeat everything that has been said about the Infant Life (Preservation) Act
1929, which was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), and its
relationship to the present law. As he said, the Act requires prima facie proof that a foetus is capable of
being born alive if a pregnancy is of more than 28 weeks' duration.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) made clear, the Infant Life (Preservation)
Act protects the life of any foetus capable of being born alive, but in practice the 28-week period has
been taken as the usual guideline for the application of that Act. The Lane committee recommended that
it should be made illegal for an abortion to be carried out after 24 weeks, but, after repeated attempts,
the House has not yet been able to resolve that matter, and the law stands as it was in 1929 and in
1967.
The Government have become concerned about the state of the law because of the changes in medical
techniques. In March 1980, my predecessor—my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East
(Sir G. Vaughan) — asked the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to undertake
a review of late abortion practice. Its report was published early in 1984, and I commend it to those
hon. Members who have not read it. The Government have been considering how best to follow the
eight major recommendations in the report, which examined the causes for late abortions and the way in
which unnecessary delays and, therefore, the number of late abortions might be reduced. The report has
been helpful in drawing attention to the factors which cause abortion to be carried out later than need
otherwise happen. We hope that those who provide abortion services, whether it be the National Health
Service or the private sector, will consider its findings carefully.
The Government propose to act in several ways. First, to take the point made by the hon. Member for
Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) among others, we propose to discuss with NHS
representatives the report's findings about delays between referrals and operations in the NHS. We shall
be having serious discussions with National Health Service representatives to ascertain whether
improvements can be made in practice in areas where delays seem to be inexplicably longer than


in other parts of the country. We shall try to disseminate the best practice so that the lessons learnt in
one place can be applied by authorities elsewhere. I understand that there is a good scheme which
appears to be working well in Newcastle. If it is proved that Newcastle has a better method of handling
these matters, we shall do our best to commend it to other health authorities and so spread it through
the service.
Secondly, the recommendations of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists point to a
need for more education, especially for younger women, to make them appreciate the urgency of early
consultation and decision making when pregnancy occurs. We shall be consulting our colleagues in the
Department of Education and Science about the prospects for more health education and counselling
facilities for young people in this sensitive area.
Thirdly, we shall be seeking to reinforce in every other way the importance of early recognition of
pregnancy and recourse to advice when anyone faces a crisis of the sort that we are discussing. That
message has already been highlighted by the Maternity Services Advisory Committee, which the
Government set up and whose report we have already commended to health authorities.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, together with other medical bodies, is
considering actively whether to recommend that the 1929 Act should be amended to change the
definition of "foetal viability" from 28 to fewer weeks. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller),
the only Member with a medical qualification to speak in the debate, told us that there is not unanimity
within the medical profession on this matter. However, I feel that most doctors consider that 28 weeks
is too long a period. This important matter needs to be considered at the level at which the Royal
College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists is now examining it. When the medical bodies produce
their advice, I am sure that it will be widely debated and that the House, as well as the Government, will
want to consider it and decide what implications it has for abortion law. I suggest that until we have had
time to consider the views of the Royal College it will be foolish for the Government to take a view
about any alternative to the 28-week provision. It is probably a little premature for anyone to try to
introduce a proposal to make changes in the law.
I think that we all expect the Royal College to come out with a shorter period than 28 weeks. Long ago
the Lane committee said that 24 weeks should be the maximum for a legal abortion. Practically everyone
who has contributed to the debate has suggested that perhaps 28 weeks is too long a period and that it
should be reduced.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and others reminisced about previous
Bills. I remember the issues which have been discussed this evening being canvassed when the House
considered the Bill that was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr.
Corrie). My hon. Friend tried to introduce a substantial amendment to the 1967 Act. In this debate those
with views as opposite as the hon. Members for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and for Fife,
Central (Mr. Hamilton) have supported a reduction from 28 to 24 weeks. I remember that I did when the
Cowie Bill was passing through the House. I think that I voted to that effect, although I have not
checked to ensure that I was present when the Division took place. However, I recall that I supported a
reduction from 28 to 24 weeks.
The majority of the House voted in favour of the reduction when the Division took place in the course
of our consideration of the Corrie Bill.
It is my recollection that the sponsors of the Corrie Bill insisted on adding many other drastic
amendments, with the result that those like the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and
Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), for Fife, Central and for Barking and myself, who would otherwise have been
happy to see a reduction from 28 to 24 weeks placed on the statute book, found that everyone's wishes
were frustrated because the Bill was eventually talked out.
If the Royal College returns with some clear advice, I think that the House will have a duty to recognise
that there is an amazingly wide spread of opinion. I hope that I shall be forgiven for referring to the
opinions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point and of the hon. Member for Barking.
Probably 28 weeks is too long a period, and the House must concentrate on making progress on that
issue, if on nothing else, if that proves to be the recommendation of the Royal College. It will be for my
right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to decide whether the Government will provide time for these
matters to be considered by the introduction of a Bill, if and when this hypothetical situation ever arises.
That is not a matter to be decided before the Royal College reports to us.

Mrs. Renée Short: Is the right hon. and
learned Gentleman aware that only 0·6 per cent. of terminations take place at 28 weeks or
later? It is still a tiny percentage and we should not get it out of all proportion when considering this
matter.

Mr. Clarke: I accept that the number is tiny, but it is
not insignificant. If the Royal College says that 28 weeks is now an unrealistically long period for "foetal
viability", to use the jargon, and that medical practice has been transformed during the period from 1929
to 1985, I think that the House will wish to address itself to modern practice and, perhaps, to insert a
more realistic limit in the statute book. However, I accept that we must not get this issue out of all
proportion.

Mr. Alton: I think that earlier the Minister said that he
did not think that this would be the right moment for any hon. Member to introduce amending legislation
to reduce the time limit when abortions can be carried out from 28 to 24 weeks. The Lane committee, a
long time ago, said that that should be done, the World Health Organisation said that that should be
done and the sponsors of earlier legislation took the same view. When does the right hon. and learned
Gentleman think will be the right time?

Mr. Clarke: The Government will not produce any
legislation of that sort. I was expressing a personal view. As the Royal College is considering the issue
at this moment, I take the view that we might as well await its report. It may be that the Royal College
will not say that 24 weeks is the right time. It is possible that it will opt for some other period. As I have
said, I do not think that it will be long before it reports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle addressed himself to nurses and whether
the so-called conscience clause needed to be strengthened. When the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend
the Member for Cunninghame, North was being considered, it received a great deal of support from all
sections of the House as it


contained provisions that suggested that the conscience clause might be rewritten. I have no evidence
that the clause is not being applied properly now. I am not aware that any nurses have been dismissed
for refusing to take part in abortion operations. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for
Gainsborough and Horncastle that we would wish to intervene to ensure that something was done if we
found that any nurse had been so ill-treated.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have been told that when
doctors have applied for posts in certain hospitals they have been denied appointments because they
said that they would refuse to terminate pregnancies. Will the Minister corroborate or reject that
allegation?

Mr. Clarke: I am not aware of any such cases. We
have no evidence that such cases have arisen. The allegation has been made repeatedly, but no cases of
that sort have been brought to me as Minister. That applies to nurses and to doctors seeking
appointments. If anything of that sort has happened, it should not have
done.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Let us suppose that there are two
gynaecologists at a hospital, one of whom performs abortions and the other does not because of his
conscience. Let us suppose also that the one who performs the abortions leaves. The post would have
to be filled, and the board would be within its rights to insist that at least one gynaecologist at the
hospital should fulfil his obligations to the Health Service.

Mr. Clarke: I cannot say what considerations a
hypothetical board might take into account in the hypothetical situation that the hon. Gentleman has
postulated. However, nurses are protected. We insist that they have a conscience clause. A doctor's
prospects should not be adversely affected if, for some religious scruple, he does not want to take part
in abortions.
I have considerable sympathy with the two basic issues that my hon. Friend the Member for
Gainsborough and Horncastle raised. I do not believe that he had a fierce opponent or critic on the
proposal to shorten the period during which abortions can take place or on his remarks about a
conscience clause. I am grateful to him for raising these matters. I assure him that the Government will
maintain their neutrality while seeking to ensure that all the safeguards in the present Act are applied in
practice from now on.

Ms. Harriet Harman: To
pregnant women, especially those in an advanced stage of pregnancy, the decision whether to have an
abortion is agonising. I do not believe that abortions are lightly entered into. I am convinced that the
decision whether to have a late abortion is not taken without a great deal of heart searching. Because it is
a difficult decision, I very much deplore the attitude of those who talk about abortion in terms of
numbers or as though it were entered into flippantly. That attitude is particularly deplorable when it
comes from men.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) will never have to struggle with the
problems of contraception which, despite recent advances, can not only make a person ill, but be
painful and unreliable. He will never have to face the shock of a pregnancy that has not been diagnosed
until it is well advanced. The hon. Gentleman will never have to face the agony of deciding whether to
carry to term an abnormal foetus and bring into the world to lead a short life a child who might be
severely handicapped.

It being Seven o'clock, the proceedings lapsed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement
of Public Business).

Local Government Bill (Allocation of Time)

7 pm

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move, That the following provisions shall apply to
the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill (except Clause 1) is allocated shall report the Bill
(except Clause 1) to the House on or before 7th March 1985.

Report and Third Reading

2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be
completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of
those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be
taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the
Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on
Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings
on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the
Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may be varied by a further
Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or
not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which
proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3. —(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to
be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not
adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings
have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee
except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatiory statement
from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the
Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new
Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee
may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the
Bill (or such of its provisions as were committed or re-committed to that Committee) to the House
without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in
the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question
on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on first allotted day

7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted
business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock
under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that
should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under
Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the
proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for

consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by
Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and
paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a
period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are
concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the
conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9. —(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be
brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or
the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the
Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the
case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause
or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of
any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put
only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order
relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing
Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration)
would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which,
under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or
before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a
Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be
postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing
Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill
which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion
on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that
Motion.

Supplemental orders

10. —(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the
Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might
have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not
previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and
paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a
time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the
sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting
by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee
shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or
completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or


(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day
after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on
Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in
consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as
a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the
Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first
Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to
be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that
day;
the Bill" means the Local Government Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business
Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as
agreed to by the House.

As the whole House is only too well aware, this motion sets out a timetable for the Bill designed to
abolish the Greater London and metropolitan county councils. This is a major piece of legislation. The
Government have been committed to it since before the general election in June 1983. The case for the
Bill will be dealt with in greater detail by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government at the
conclusion of the debate, but let me say at once that I believe that case to be formidable and to have
been fully made out during the prolonged debate which has taken place on the issue, both in Parliament
and outside.
The Bill had its origins in the White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" which was published in October
1983 together with a series of consultation papers. These documents gave rise to a lengthy period of
consultation and discussion. In addition, there were long and probing debates in Parliament during the
last Session on the Bill which became the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984. I do not
believe, therefore, that anyone can claim that the policy that lies behind the Bill has not been thoroughly
examined.
The Bill is substantial. It has to make arrangements for the transfer of functions to the successor
authorities, including police, fire, passenger transport and the newly constituted Inner London education
authority. The Bill has to deal also with the implications for staff and to settle the financial arrangements.
It is therefore right that a substantial amount of parliamentary time should be provided for it to be
debated, and the Government have recognised this.
In addition to two full days on Second Reading, clause 1 was committed to a Committee of the whole
House. The remainder has now been under discussion in Standing Committee for over 100 hours.
In referring to the proceedings in Standing Committee I recognise that the Opposition have
demonstrated their developing expertise in these matters. I congratulate them on the fact that they have
not on this occasion chosen to rely solely on the tactics immortalised by the hon. Member for
Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). There has been no repeat of the marathon filibusters which were
such a

lamentable feature of the Telecommunications Bill in the last two Sessions of Parliament. None the less,
progress has been slow.

Mr. Dave Nellist: To backup the right hon.
Gentleman's point, will he recognise that one of the longest speeches made in Standing Committee
— 72 minutes — was made by the Minister of State, Department of Transport? If the
guillotine motion is implemented, hon. Members will have less than 40 minutes to discuss each
remaining clause. It is a matter not of filibustering but of the Government trying to curtail
debate.

Mr. Biffen: That statistic shows the generosity of my
hon. Friend the Minister in giving way to the many interruptions that marked her speech.
In its first sitting the Committee discussed the three lines that make up clause 2 for two and a half hours,
despite the fact that no amendments to that clause had been selected. Thirty eight hours were then
devoted to clauses 3 and 4 and schedule 1. At that rate of progress the Bill would have spent well over
400 hours in Committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Opposition's cheers indicate
that that was their aspiration.
After more than 100 hours, there are more than 80 clauses and nine schedules still to be
debated.

Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman
seems to be surprised that the Opposition should say, "Hear, hear" to the idea of the Bill being
discussed for more than 400 hours. He will recall that the London Government Act 1963 at least had the
benefit of three years of a Royal Commission to consider all the proposals for reorganisation. If we had
had a similar amount of time to consider these proposals for reorganisation, the right hon. Gentleman
would not now be moving the guillotine motion.

Mr. Biffen: I am happy that the hon. Gentleman
referred to a measure which, in its day, was also guillotined.
Furthermore, the debate has to be concluded to enable the other place to carry out its own measured
consideration of these major local government reforms. It is therefore clear that the imposition of a
timetable is required to secure proper consideration of the very important provisions still outstanding.
That timetable is realistically drawn and will not be unreasonable. The motion will allow the Committee a
further 16 sessions if the Business Sub-Committee decides to continue morning and afternoon sittings.
Sensibly allocated, that will allow all the significant issues to be discussed. In addition, two full
days—one lasting until midnight—will be provided on the Floor of the House for Report
and Third Reading.

Mr. Tony Banks: We will all turn into
pumpkins.

Mr. Biffen: That fate overtakes a great many
Opposition Members as they run out of reasoned arguments and resort to a level of contribution that is
barely above a reading of the London telephone directory.
I think it appropriate that at this point I should say a few words on the subject of timetabling in
general.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: Before my right hon. Friend goes on
to discuss timetabling in general, will he state whether he is aware that, under the timetable he is setting
out—ending in Committee on 7 March—hon. Members will be allowed a maximum of
40 minutes per


item to discuss the 56 clauses and schedules left? Is that a reasonable amount of time in which to
consider such a complicated measure?

Mr. Biffen: I believe that it is a reasonable amount in
the light of my hon. Friend's known quality to present his arguments succinctly and
persuasively.

Mr. Allan Roberts: All the
metropolitan counties and the GLC will be affected. The electorate in those areas expect the person
representing them to contribute in Committee to a debate on the major issues. If we have only 40
minutes for each clause, it will not be possible for Opposition Members, let alone Government
Members, to speak for more than two minutes on major issues such as the police. I would be able to
contribute for only two minutes to the debate on the consequences for the police force in the whole of
Merseyside.

Mr. Biffen: That is just an argument for debate
sharing. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman, who has a reputation for putting his arguments with
accuracy and effect, will put his case even more accurately and effectively if it is allied with the quality
of brevity.
As the House knows, the Select Committee on Procedure is now engaged on an inquiry into public Bill
procedure, and timetabling figures in that inquiry. My own evidence to the Committee is a matter of
public record and I do not wish to rehearse the arguments now. At business questions last week I was
made aware by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) of the continuing
desire in some parts of the House for automatic timetabling. I still believe that adequate and balanced
debate on matters of great interest can generally be better secured by negotiation and agreement than by
the imposition of a prejudged timetable from the outset. Agreement is, unfortunately, not always
possible. My reluctance to abandon the system of negotiation and agreement is, I hope, a testimony to
my personal instinct for unfettered debate.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend know
how many times after discussions with the Opposition there has been agreement to have reasonable
discussions on a Bill without having to timetable it? Secondly, has he sought such an arrangement over
this Bill, and if so what was the answer?

Mr. Biffen: On my hon. Friend's first point, without
notice I cannot give him a statistical answer, but most Bills go through the House with an overt or tacit
agreement as to their broad time schedule. His second point can more appropriately be dealt with by my
right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government.
I make those comments notwithstanding the scepticism of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw),
contained in an article in The Times last Monday. In that article, and again at business questions
last week, he alleged that the statistics demonstrate this Treasury Bench to be the most enthusiastic
guillotiners since Robespierre.

Mr. Jack Straw: I did
not say that.

Mr. Biffen: The implication was even more dreadful.
As we are all aware, an innocent reliance on global statistics can mislead. The House may benefit from a
rather more detached, if not desiccated, analysis of recent history.
The Labour party was in power for five years and two months from February 1974. During that period
it

introduced a timetable on 12 occasions. This Government took office in May 1979, and five years and
nine months have elapsed. This is the 16th guillotine motion that we have introduced. One must also
bear in mind, however, the fact that two of those timetables were introduced on the same
Telecommunications Bill because of the fortuitous circumstances of the 1983 general election. In
addition, on one occasion in 1982 I had the irksome task of introducing a guillotine against some of the
Government's supporters. The incident left me with the clearest impression that it was no ordinary
guillotine occasion. I do not include it in the tally. Thus, a true reading of the score would be 12 to the
Labour Government, 14 to the Conservative Government —[Interruption.] I have not
finished. This is just the beginning of this in-depth analysis.
We must also consider the fact that the Labour Government were effectively in a minority in the House
from March 1977 onwards. Thereafter, the Government could only guillotine by courtesy of the Liberal
party. Thus, it is fairer to say that an autonomous Labour Government introduced nine guillotines in
three years and this Treasury Bench, on a comparable basis, 14 guillotines in five years nine months. I
believe, therefore, that a dispassionate analysis of the fact—

Mr. Harry Cowans: While the Leader of the House is
reading out those statistics, will he tell the House how many of those guillotines were of a constitutional
nature, as on this Bill, and how many of them the Government recognised as a constitutional issue by
allowing two days to discuss clause 1 on the Floor of the House? If he were to allow two days for the
rest of the clauses, that would make sense.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman belongs to a party
which during its last term of office forced through guillotines to support devolution—the Wales
Bill, the Scotland Bill and a Bill for the establishment of a British contingent to a directly elected
European Assembly. The Government need no instruction from him about the constitutional proprieties
in these matters.
A dispassionate analysis of the facts does not support the argument of the hon. Member for Blackburn.
If there is any lesson to be learnt, it is that over a period of many years Governments of different
persuasions have found the use of the timetable motion to be occasionally necessary to ensure the
passage of their legislation. The timetable is as necessary to a legislative programme as sewerage is to
civilisation.

Mr. Straw: We have all been entertained by the
speech of the Leader of the House, especially his dispassionate analysis of the the facts, which reflect
his Treasury background. He will not deny that a dispassionate analysis of the facts in the Clerks'
evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure clearly showed that in five years the Government
guillotined more Bills in Standing Committee than previous Governments guillotined in 20
years.

Mr. Biffen: Yes, but they were the same basic raw
statistics in respect of this Government and the previous Labour Government. [Interruption.]
They are raw statistics, as I believe I have demonstrated to the general satisfaction of the House. On a
more refined


consideration, it is clear that there is no preponderance of a disposition for the guillotine on one side of
the House rather than on the other.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree
that if sewerage is important for civilisation it should not be taxed? On the subject of a guillotine motion,
following his arguments a few moments ago, does he agree that on both sides of the House guillotines
have been used where constitutional arguments and perhaps constitutional propriety have been at stake,
and that therefore that is a just criticism of the Bill which he now wishes to guillotine?

Mr. Biffen: I do not believe that the character of the
Local Government Bill is any more a constitutional measure than the three propositions of the Labour
Governments which I read out a few moments ago. Any attempt to divert argument in that direction
would merely lead one to a cul-de-sac.
I do not wish to delay the House further. The Local Government Bill is an important part of the
Government's programme. Its passage is awaited by millions of ratepayers and by all those in local
government whose decisions will reflect the Bill's contents. This motion will facilitate that passage and
do so in a way that allows sensible debate of the issues. I commend the motion to the
House.

Mr. Peter Shore: I have taken part, as has the
Leader of the House, in a number of guillotine debates during this Parliament, but I cannot recall one
where so great a folly and so much damage will ensue from foreclosing and limiting debate as in the
case before us today.
I found the right hon. Gentleman's speech to be completely unconvincing, and not merely in the content
and the raw or refined statistics that he put before us which sought to justify or ensure his reputation as
a liberal in the matter of guillotines. It was generally delivered in what can only be described as blazing
insincerity.
The Government's reasons for stifling debate are all too clear. When the Second Reading of the Local
Government Bill came to an end on 4 December, the Opposition's reasoned amendment was defeated
and the Government's proposition for the Second Reading was carried by majorities of about 135. It
has been remarkable how the Government's majorities have faded since that initial event.
When clause 1, which contains the principle of the Bill—the abolition of the GLC and the
metropolitan county councils — was taken on the Floor of the House on Wednesday 12
December, the Government's majority on the Opposition's amendment not to proceed until the House
had received a report by a Royal Commission on those proposals was only 51 votes. The next
amendment by the Opposition which asked for a prior report by the parliamentary committee of inquiry
was defeated by only 44 votes, and on the third amendment calling for an independent inquiry into the
cost implications for local services the Government had a majority of only 45. In the last vote of that
day, an amendment calling for the replacement of the GLC by another directly elected authority was
defeated by a mere 23 votes.
The strongest argument against the Bill, though not the only powerful argument against it, was put by
the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath).

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The right hon. Gentleman says that majorities fell during the
discussion of clause 1 in two days' consideration on the Floor of the House. That clause abolishes the
GLC and the six metropolitan counties, but the right hon. Gentleman did not say what majority we had
in the Division on clause 1 stand part. How many over 100 was our majority?

Mr. Shore: It was about 100, but there was a super
three-line Whip to recover from the humiliation of the 23 majority that reflected the sentiments of
Conservative Members at the end of the previous debate.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said:
The Bill contains proposals for a major constitutional change and it comes without precedent
because no public inquiry has been carried out as the basis for it. What is more, the case against the
GLC and the metropolitan counties remains unproven. No substantial evidence has been produced for
abolishing the GLC or the metropolitan counties.
That is the heart of the matter.
The Bill is, indeed, a constitutional measure. It marks a major shift in the distribution of powers between
central and local government. It greatly diminishes the power of local government and local democracy.
Indeed, how could it be otherwise when elected local authorities in the metropolitan counties and
London, providing services for 18 million people, are to be abolished from 31 March 1986 and no new
elected authorities are to be put in their place?
The Secretary of State has disingenuously argued that the overwhelming majority of services taken away
from the metropolitan authorities and the GLC will be exercised in future by the lower tier elected
authorities in those areas. But he arrives at that conclusion only by listing the trivial with the major
functions of the local authorities. Surely what really matters is that services involving 82 per cent. of the
spending of metropolitan areas will be removed from directly elected bodies to statutory boards and
quangos and that only 18 per cent. will go to the district councils. That conclusion was reached by PA
Management Consultants, which carried out a major study of what the Government have
proposed.
We have no written constitution, but it has been the practice of successive Governments for a century
or more to extend the scope of local democracy. The Bill, along with measures that have preceded it,
including the Rates Act, which enables the Secretary of State to determine the rates levied by local
authorities, the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act, which abolishes for London and the
metropolitan counties the elections that were to have been held on 2 May this year, and the earlier
powers that enable the Secretary of State to impose an elaborate system of targets on local authorities,
have halted and reversed the long-established trend towards greater local democracy.
Indeed, more powers are now exercised at the centre, by the Secretary of State and, through him, by
nominated boards and bodies, than were at any time in the past 100 years. As the right hon. Member for
Bexley and Sidcup stressed, all that has been done without an independent inquiry. Not only has there
not been an independent inquiry, but there has been no serious thinking in Government Departments
about the implications of the policy that they are pursuing and the future arrangements for the services
that are affected.
How the Government landed in this miserable state was revealed by the right hon. Member for Old
Bexley and Sidcup when he told us — and his words matter enormously:
The last sad part of the saga is being justified on the ground that the proposals were set out in
the Conservative party's manifesto. They were put in nine days after the election was called against the
wishes of the party policy committee. They were inserted without the general agreement of those who
had been London Conservative Members." —[Official Report, 4 December 1984; Vol.
69, c. 190–1.]

Dr. Keith Hampson: When we had an independent
inquiry—the Redcliffe-Maud inquiry —my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley
and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) not only rejected its recommendations, but produced the present hopeless
arrangements. In addition, the Labour Government did not accept the Redcliffe-Maud
recommendations. They produced different proposals. The met counties had education, and that was
not proposed by Redcliffe-Maud.

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman's memory has let him
down. There was a minority and a majority report in the Redcliffe-Maud inquiry. The Labour
Government had no difficulty in going for the large unitary authorities which were then proposed.
Following the 1970 election, a botched-up scheme was put forward, but at least it had some relevance
to a recent independent inquiry.
The difficulties facing the Government were predictable. Local government structures and services form
a complex jigsaw. By removing the GLC and the six metropolitan county councils, the Government
have removed seven major pieces from the board, without any thought-out strategy for redesigning the
remaining structure or filling in the gaping holes. That was bound to lead to chaos, improvisation and
muddle—and we have had all three.
It is the plain duty of the House and its Standing Committee fully to explore the ramifications of this
ill-prepared measure. I reject—though I hardly need to do so, because the Leader of the House
has conceded our claim—any suggestion that there has been filibustering in the 100 hours of
Committee consideration that the Bill has so far received. Indeed, the longest speech — 72
minutes—was made by a Minister.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: If the right hon. Gentleman looks
at the progress made on the Bill in Committee, he will see that, at that rate of progress, there was no
chance of the measure coming back to the House in time to become law in this Session. If the
Opposition really wanted a full discussion on this important subject—I accept that they do not
want the Bill—would it not have been helpful and wise if they had volunteered a timetable for the
Bill?

Mr. Shore: No proposals were made by the
Government for handling the Bill by agreement. The Government simply reached whatever bench mark
of progress they had in mind and came forward with the guillotine motion.
During that period, the Committee has considered the complex questions of town and country planning,
development plans, listed buildings, national parks, highways and road traffic functions, waste
regulation and waste disposal, land drainage and flood prevention, the administration of
justice—including magistrates courts and the coroners service — valuation panels and
the probation service.
No one in his senses would argue that those are small or trivial matters. They are of vital concern to
people in communities throughout the metropolitan areas and our capital city. The new arrangements for
the reallocation of those services, mainly to the London boroughs and the metropolitan district councils,
needed the most careful scrutiny.
What is really appalling is the vast areas of the Bill that have not even been reached. Not a word has
been spoken yet in Committee on the future of our largest education authority, the Inner London
education authority, nor has there been any opportunity to discuss such major matters as the fire
service, the police and passenger transport, all of which are to be transferred to non-elected joint
authorities. Yet, in the case of the metropolitan counties, those services account for no less than 67 per
cent. of their current expenditure. Those joint authorities will at least be comprised of members
appointed by the borough or district councils in their areas. However, that will not be the case in part V
of the Bill, which transfers such major facilities as the historic house museums in London to the Historic
Buildings and Monuments Commission. Collections of national importance belonging to the
metropolitan county councils will be transferred to new trustee bodies. The South Bank arts complex is
to pass to the Arts Council.
Those are all transfers to non-elected bodies, but even that will not do the job. Part VII of the Bill
provides for the establishment in each area of the body to be known as the residuary body, consisting
of members appointed by the Secretary of State to deal with all those difficult and inconvenient matters
for which no other body can he made responsible. To add insult to injury, all those new
authorities—the joint authorities, the non-elected bodies and the appointed residuary
bodies—will be empowered to issue a precept and will, from day one and at least the following
three years, be rate capped by the Secretary of State. Along with the named authorities, they are to be
brought within part I of the Rates Act 1984 at the moment of their existence.
Those are very complex arrangements, and it is intolerable that there should no longer be the
opportunity seriously to debate, amend and discuss them in what is now left of the Committee stage. Of
course, the Leader of the House says that the timetable motion allows for further debate. It does. But
since the Bill has to be reported to the House on or before 7 March, that will leave time for no more
than seven further Committee sittings. So far the Committee has debated 16 clauses of the Local
Government Bill, clauses that are linked with no fewer than eight schedules running to 62 pages of text.
That is what the Committee has done already. In the seven remaining Committee sittings that we are
now allowed under the guillotine, a further 81 clauses fall to be considered together with another eight
schedules comprising 52 additional pages of text. Of one thing we can be certain: much the larger part
of this most controversial and ill-thought-out Bill will go to the other place undiscussed and
unamended.
While the Government have persistently refused to subject their proposals to any sort of independent
scrutiny, the authorities affected have called in consultants of repute. The report published by PA
Management Consultants, after an intensive study of the new structures proposed, concludes with these
words:


the multiplicity of compulsory and voluntary joint working between Metropolitan District
Councils is an unsound basis for an effective lasting structure".
The report goes on to say:
overall we have been unable to find a single service where the quality of service to the local
elector is likely to be improved as a result of the change in structure. In many cases we believe there will
be a marked decline in quality".
The only justification that the Government have attempted to advance during the discussions of their
proposals is that there will be some cost savings. In the explanatory and financial memorandum to the
Bill they say:
The government's current estimate … is that, subject to decisions yet to be taken by
successor authorities, a saving of the order of £100 million annually will be achievable by
removing a tier of government and eliminating duplication of functions.".
No evidence has been presented by the Government to justify that claim. Against it, the councils
themselves have commissioned Coopers and Lybrand to give its own independent estimate. In its
second report, it concluded as follows:
the proposed changes cannot be expected to lead to savings in themselves … savings
therefore can only be sought as a result of policy changes about the levels of services and hence
expenditure in an area.
One can get savings only if one cuts the services. That is nothing to do with changing the structure of
local government. On the very claim that the Government make of a £100 million saving by
abolition of the GLC and the six metropolitan counties, Coopers and Lybrand concludes not only that
the Government's claims cannot be supported but that likely additional annual costs at least in the six
areas of the metropolitan counties will be up to £69 million per year.
The plain truth is that the Bill is part, perhaps the crowning achievement, of the Government's campaign
against local democracy, the hard-hit inner cities and conurbation areas of the country, and areas where
their political opponents, the Labour party, are in local control.

Mr. Nellist: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Shore: I shall not give way to my hon. Friend as I
must conclude.
Not content with fining and penalising local councils that maintain their services, not content even with
taking powers to limit their ability to raise and set their own rates, the Government have now reached the
ultimate stage of abolishing the offenders altogether. That reflects all too clearly the authoritarian
temperament of the Government, particularly of the Prime Minister. The new arrangements are not only
an affront to democracy, but are illogical, cumbersome and unworkable. The guillotine at this stage of
the Bill that gives legislative authority to the proposals adds insult to injury, and we shall oppose it in the
Lobby tonight.

Mr. Martin Stevens: Those of
us who have the pleasure and delight of serving on the Standing Committee on the Bill that we are
discussing will have heard the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with the
greatest possible pleasure, first, because of the felicity and charm that graced their utterance, but no less
because his speech spelt out for us not the end of debate on the Bill, but the beginning. As

we know, the Select Committee on Procedure is now examining this matter. Many of us feel that there
would be benefit in Standing Committees always working to time from day one. First and, in my
submission, not least, that would give the Government's supporters on the Committee a fair chance to
participate in the debate. Second, and perhaps more important, it would tie down the Committee to
debating the realities that are at stake and to forgetting, or at least passing over with relative speed, the
emotional frivolities that we have been forced to hear throughout the past eight
weeks.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: If we
thought that the guillotine would assist Conservative Members to take part in the debate, my hon.
Friends and I on the Committee would welcome that because so far we have heard almost nothing in
justification of the measures on which Conservative Members regularly vote. The hon. Gentleman said
that timetabling the Committee would allow adequate participation in debates. Does he include Ministers
in that? Once the guillotine is passed, does he expect real answers from Ministers, rather than the casual
reading of briefs which we have had so far?

Mr. Stevens: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would
not expect me to answer for my ministerial colleagues. It is up to them what they say and do. I have no
doubt that they will continue to give a good account of themselves.
When I said that there had been a certain amount of emotional frivolity, I go along with my right hon.
Friend the Leader of the House, in that on this occasion I do not accuse the Opposition of filibustering.
They have, however, concentrated their whole line of argument on a series of propositions which are
false. For example, they have told us ad nauseam that no Government since Boadicea have ever denied
people the democratic right to vote for an outgoing local authority. Yet that is exactly what the Labour
party did in London in 1964 and in the rest of the country in 1975 when forms of local administration
were being phased out.
I do not say that this action was our first choice, but the House knows the reasons for it and there is
ample precedent for it in the history of Labour Governments. If the Opposition keep repeating what
everyone knows to be rubbish, I think that I am entitled to describe that as emotional
frivolity.

Mr. Tony Banks: As the hon. Gentleman well knows,
far from repeating emotional rubbish, the Opposition have cited reams of evidence submitted to all
members of the Committee from learned bodies, royal institutions and impartial sources to the effect
that the Government have got it completely wrong. Meanwhile, the Government have been unable to
produce even one substantial piece of evidence to support their proposals. Finally, why have 10
Conservative Members sat in the Committee and said absolutely nothing throughout the proceedings?

Mr. Stevens: It is always a pleasure to hear
interventions from the hon. Gentleman. The reams of evidence from more or less interested outside
bodies to which he refers do not relate to the point that I was making, from which he was careful to
divert attention. As for the allegation that 10 Government supporters have not yet spoken, the timetable
motion will give them the opportunity to break forth into compelling words. I look forward not just to
hearing them but to joining them in weeks to come.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am not here to defend either
Tory or Labour Governments, but the hon. Gentleman is wrong about a Labour Government having set
a precedent, as both the GLC and the metropolitan counties were set up by Tory legislation. Moreover,
neither occasion was a precedent for what the Government are now doing, because on both occasions
the life of an elected authority was continued pending the replacement of higher-tier authorities. In this
case, however, the life of an authority is continued for one year by the abolition of elections, but no
interim authority is to come into existence. In this case the authority is to be dissolved. There is no
precedent for that from any Government.

Mr. Stevens: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting
technicality and in so doing draws attention to another Opposition argument — the wilful
assertion that less government means less democracy. I should have thought that the fewer tiers of
government the people of this country have to find their way through, the greater the presumption
should be that there will be more rather than less democracy.

Mr. Tony Banks: Why not scrap the whole lot then?

Mr. Stevens: Surely no one would argue that the
abolition of the area health authorities has undermined the conduct of the National Health
Service.

Mr. Tony Banks: They should never have been set up
in the first place.

Mr. Stevens: My party set up the GLC and no one
could be sadder than I at what has happened to it. I played a small part in that, as Chris Chataway and I
put to the Royal Commission the evidence that came closest to its final proposition. That being so, I
should have liked the GLC to operate successfully as a strategic authority. From the first GLC election
in 1965, however, the GLC triggered off its reserve powers on a daily basis, and instead of being the
strategic authority that it was set up to be it became a very slow and expensive duplicating authority,
duplicating the functions of the boroughs which both parties had agreed should be, and now will be, the
primary instruments of local government.

Dr. Hampson: I understand that the Liberal party
favours abolishing the metropolitan counties and not replacing them. It apparently wants an even more
distant tier in the shape of some colossal regional government system.

Mr. Stevens: That is a helpful intervention and I see
some nods from across the way.

Mr. Simon Hughes: At least we are
consistent.

Mr. Stevens: It is interesting that the right hon.
Gentleman who leads the Opposition in Committee — I am sorry, the hon. Gentleman who
leads the Opposition in Committee—

Mr. Tony Banks: It is only a matter of
time.

Mr. Stevens: I am sure that that is so. The hon.
Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has made it clear that an incoming Labour Government would
not replace the six metropolitan counties, but he has not yet said whether an incoming Labour
Government would reinstate the GLC. At Labour party local government conferences up to and
including 1981 the speeches made by Labour

Members now passionately committed to the opposite view show that there is a twist of hypocrisy in
the outrage and condemnation to which they now subject us.
One very unpleasant feature of the Standing Committee on the Bill is the presence round the clock in the
Public Gallery of a group of agents, presumably paid for by the ratepayers—some have
assessed the number as being as high as 26, although it is difficult to identify them
accurately—

Mr. Tony Banks: The hon. Gentleman can do better
than that. As he well knows, GLC officers have been present, but at no time have there been more than
four paid officers present. They are there to advise not just the Opposition but Conservative Members.
I have made it clear to the Committee that if Government supporters need information — from
the paucity of their arguments it is clear that they do — they are welcome to consult those
officers. The hon. Gentleman should not continue to mislead the House. He should take it from me as a
GLC councillor that there have never been more than four paid officers
present.

Mr. Stevens: May we also take it from the hon.
Gentleman, as a member of the GLC, that at least some of the people who, day and night, accompany
the Committee in the Public Gallery are not concealing their identity by means of false names or code
names? Can he repeat—

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the hon. Gentleman give
way?

Mr. Stevens: I shall give way to the hon. Member for
Bootle (Mr. Roberts) after giving way to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr.
Banks).

Mr. Banks: It does not take much persuasion to make
me rise to answer the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) or any other Government Member. Yes,
there have never been more than four paid officials there. From time to time there have been a number
of elected members who have a close interest in the matter and a more detailed knowledge of what the
Government are trying to do.

Mr. Stevens: That was not the answer that I had
hoped for. I had thought that my question was precise, but clearly it has been
avoided.

Mr. Allan Roberts: There have been visits from
officers and elected members of Merseyside county council. Not many officers have been present, but
one or two elected members have come here under their own steam, paying their own expenses. The
chief officer responsible for the waste disposal services took unpaid leave in order to attend the
Committee.

Mr. Stevens: The idea of ladies and gentlemen from
Merseyside county council undertaking such work gratis in their own time is an inspiring vision. The
House is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for telling us about it.

Mr. John Powley (Norwich, South): The hon.
Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was careful to say that at any one time no more than
four GLC officers were present in the Committee. He did not say that only four had ever been present.
Is it not possible that, through the long hours, relays of four different people at different times have
been involved in the argument?

Mr. Stevens: That is what is called playing the
numbers game. I do no more than thank my hon. Friend for his kind
intervention.

Mr. Cowans: I am following the hon. Gentleman's
arguments closely, which is more than I have had a chance to do in Committee. He should remember,
first, that there is a bevy of talent in the Committee sitting by the Chairman, all of it presumably paid for
by the taxpayer. Secondly, if the hon. Gentleman's argument is so substantial and his case so good,
why should he worry even if there are 30,000 people in the Public Gallery?

Mr. Stevens: I would not go so far as to say that I am
worried. My modest comment—I have referred to only what is on the Committee's record
— has attracted so many excited interventions from the Opposition Benches that it has
consumed more time than I had in mind.

Mr. Clive Soley: It
was offensive.

Mr. Stevens: I do not know that it was offensive. It is
a fact.

Mr. Soley: I can tell the hon. Gentleman why his
comments were offensive. He has launched an attack upon people who have a proper interest in
servicing that Committee in the same way as it is done by the civil servants, whom the hon. Gentleman
has not attacked. He knows that they cannot answer back. He even says that they appear under false
names. That is offensive to many people who work hard and properly.

Mr. Stevens: The hon. Member for Hammersmith
(Mr. Soley) has uttered a clear denial of my point. Hon. Members will no doubt take account of his
intervention when judging the veracity of what I said.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) referred to a remark that he said had
come from the lips of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), whose
seat in the Chamber I have momentarily usurped. My right hon. Friend is alleged to have said that the
question of abolition was introduced into the Conservative party manifesto without any considerable
discussion with Greater London Conservative Members.
Since 1979 I have continuously been the secretary of the Greater London group of Conservative
Members — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]. The position is indeed not without honour. My
right hon. Friend is a member of that group but has never attended a
meeting.

Mr. Tony Banks: The right hon. Gentleman is no
fool.

Mr. Stevens: Tempting nets are laid before our feet in
these debates. I shall resist the temptation to dance on that trampoline.

Mr. Banks: What an awesome
thought.

Mr. Stevens: In the two years leading up to the 1983
general election it sometimes seemed that there was not a weekly meeting of the Greater London
Conservative Members at which the issue of the GLC and its abolition was not discussed ad nauseam.
By the time of the election there was no doubt at all — pace my hon. Friend the Member for
Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) — that the overwhelming majority of Conservative Greater London
Members — who then as now exceeded in number the Labour Members for Greater London
— were in favour of abolition. On a number of occasions we sought

interviews with the leader of the party, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to make them
aware of our views.
That may well be the only topic on which I speak with greater authority than my right hon. Friend the
Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. Since I can outspeak him on that one point, this may be a suitable
moment for me to resume my seat.

Mr. Banks: The right hon. Gentleman's
seat.

Mr. Stevens: My right hon. Friend's seat. Before I do
so, I must assure my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of my full
support.

Mr. John Cartwright: I begin
by congratulating the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens) on a speech today that was longer than
the total sum of his utterances in Committee. I shall not take up all the points made by the hon.
Gentleman. I was fascinated by his fantasies of sinister GLC officers, giving false names and no doubt
sporting false beards, controlling the affairs of the Committee.
I was impressed by the use of creative accounting—as it is now called—by the Leader
of the House in order to prove that the Government's record on guillotining is no worse than that of
their Labour predecessors. However, though entertaining, the argument was not persuasive.
I still believe that there is a powerful case for timetabling Bills from the start. However, whether Bills are
timetabled by agreement or whether, as in this case, a guillotine is imposed, there should be adequate
time for proper debate. The Leader of the House was not persuasive on that point in relation to this Bill.
It is a complex piece of legislation. Those who believed that removing one tier of metropolitan
government would be an easy operation have learnt the hard way that it is far from easy. This is not just
a Local Government Bill. For the seven largest conurbations in the country, it is also an education,
transport, police and fire authorities Bill.
As the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) correctly reminded us, many
important issues remain to be examined in Committee, and, on the basis of the timetable now before us,
they will have to be rushed. Part III sets up a completely new body to oversee London's education.
That will be a freestanding, one service authority. Modern local government has no experience of that
sort of organisation—not since the days of the London School Board. This issue needs proper
scrutiny, as does the method of electing the ILEA.
Part IV introduces the joint boards. That has aroused considerable controversy and detailed
criticism.
Part V restructures the funding of voluntary organisations. Here again, there has been considerable
criticism. Among the critics is the London Churches Group, which wrote to the Prime Minister on 9
November detailing its criticism of that part of the Government's proposals. That letter was signed by
some distinguished churchmen, no less than the Bishop of London, the Bishop of Southwark, the
Methodist Chairman of London, southeastern district, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and the
Archbishop of Southwark. I should have thought that even this Government would have taken seriously
a letter signed by so many distinguished churchmen. However, I do not believe that we shall have
adequate time to debate that important part of the Bill.
Part VI contains all the complex arrangements for staff. The future allocation of staff as a result of the
abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties will be anything but straightforward. Staff will have
to be slotted in to successor authorities, be they joint boards or borough or district councils. That will
be a complex operation. The staff involved are entitled to see that this part of the Bill is examined in
detail and is treated with the seriousness that it deserves.
Part VII sets up the residuary authority. Here again, there is more than one view. Some Conservative
Members are clearly anxious to use the residuary body to take over many of the GLC's existing powers.
They are surely entitled to have adequate time to develop their arguments, but that will not be available
on the basis of the timetabling that is now proposed.

Mr. Dykes: As time goes on, is it not becoming
clearer that the only way to get out of the dilemma that the Government have created for themselves is
to allow this residuary body to take over those functions and to become an elected successor
authority?

Mr. Cartwright: I do not believe that that is the ideal
solution, but it is one solution. It is certainly more attractive than the one that the Government are
putting forward. I am simply arguing that, given some measure of support for that idea among
Conservative Members, that alone should have persuaded the Government to give ample time to enable
it to be properly examined and discussed. I do not believe that that time will be available on the basis of
the timetable before us.
Part VIII deals with the principles of rate levying and precepting, the complexities of reorganising
grant-related expenditure assessments, and all the other myriad complexities of local government
financing which will result from abolition. Therefore, major elements in the Bill will not be properly
examined on the basis of the timetabling that has been proposed.
The Leader of the House was happy to remind us of the precedent established by the London
Government Bill in 1963. That was timetabled almost from the very start. Clause 1 and schedule 1 were
taken on the Floor of the House, but a timetable applied to the remainder. It was a similar timetable to
the one now before us. About seven weeks were allowed for Committee stage and only two days for
Report. Two arguments put forward by the Government in support of that timetable do not apply
today. The late Iain Macleod argued that the Bill implemented the unanimous recommendation of a
Royal Commission and that as a result the Government were entitled to timetable it. That does not apply
to this Bill, which is the result of a manifesto commitment but no serious independent examination.
Secondly, in arguing the case for a timetable based on the London Government Bill, the right hon.
Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said:
We have the support of the bulk of our hon. Friends on every part of the Bill. We have the
support of all our hon. Friends, except, I think, for one, on the principles of the Bill as a whole".
—[Official Report, 29 January 1963; Vol. 670, c. 893–94.]
It is clear that that argument cannot be used in relation to this legislation, in respect of which there are
considerable doubts among many Conservative Members.
When we look at the 1972 legislation which reorganised local government outside Greater London and
set up the metropolitan counties, we find a more generous allocation

of time. Second Reading took place on 16 and 17 November 1971. There was a lengthy Committee
stage; the Bill did not come back on Report until 13 April 1972; and it did not complete Report and
Third Reading until 21 July 1972. Debate on the Floor of the House totalled 67 hours, covering seven
days, including two all-night sittings. That is a much more generous allocation of time than the two days
which have been allotted for this Local Government Bill.
I also endorse the view put forward by the Opposition, and I think accepted by Conservative Members,
that the conduct of the Committee thus far produces no evidence of undue delay on the part of the
Opposition. Those of us who have had experience of other local government measures have enjoyed
the contributions of the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans). So far we have been
disappointed in Committee because the hon. Member has substantially restricted his contributions. That
is a great loss to the Committee and to us all. Indeed, as other hon. Members have pointed out, the hon.
Member for Tyne Bridge has been eclipsed by some of the speeches from the Government Front
Bench. I do not criticise the fact that Ministers have made lengthy contributions. This legislation is
complex, and Ministers are right to seek to explain it in detail. They are right to react to our criticisms,
because the Bill requires that sort of examination.
So far there have been no concessions from the Government. No amendments have been accepted and
no concessions have been even faintly suggested. This timetable is unappealing because, as well as
getting no concessions, even the Opposition's argument will be cut short, despite the fact that, day after
day and night after night, we have been able to refer to an overwhelming body of expert opinion which
demonstrates that the Government's case is not supported by those who work in and are most
intimately associated with the services concerned. We have not had from the Government any serious,
persuasive evidence of expert opinion in support of what they are proposing.
This Bill will have a tremendous impact on many institutions and organisations in the metropolitan areas.
It will also have a tremendous impact on millions of people in our seven greatest conurbations. Its
effects will be felt for many years to come. It needs the most rigorous and careful scrutiny. It should
not be railroaded through the House by sheer force of numbers. Therefore, my hon. Friends and I will
vote against the timetable motion tonight.

Mr. John Powley: I am one of the most junior
Members of the House of Commons, although I am as proud to be an hon. Member as anybody else. I
have always believed in the traditions of the House and its historial precedents. The speeches that
opened this debate followed the traditions of the House and there are many precedents for them. I
suspect that those speeches could relate to all of the other measures that have had a timetable motion,
whether it be by Labour or Conservative Governments.
It may be presumptuous of a fairly new Member to suggest, with great respect and in all sincerity, that
there must be a better way to conduct our business. I do not pretend to know what is going on in the
Business Sub-Committee or in the higher echelons of Government, but a way should be found for the
House to conduct its


business without us going through a ritual for controversial measures, and most of them are
controversial. We have a fairly heated debate on Second Reading, and the Bill is referred to a Standing
Committee. The first 100 to 130 hours of the Committee are taken up by speeches from the Opposition
Members in support of amendments, while the Government Benches rightly resist those amendments
until the Government, duty bound to get legislation through, because that is what the Government are
about, decide that a timetable motion must be sought. We come to the appointed day and there are
ritual speeches in the House, and the Government, again rightly — I shall be supporting the
motion—get the timetable motion. That is put into force and the Bill goes through Committee to
the Report stage, Third Reading and then to the other place. That process could be applied to almost
every controversial measure that has had to be guillotined. There must be a better
way.

Mr. Dykes: My hon. Friend is saying things that will
strike a chord in the hearts and minds of many hon. Members. Does he agree that there is another
central problem of our parliamentary system? It is an increasing problem that causes increasing dismay
and despair in the public. Governments can legislate too easily on the basis of a minority popular vote
and get that legislation too easily through the House. There is not sufficient examination, and that
problem will not be solved even by the latest proposals of the Procedure
Committee.

Mr. Powley: I do not accept that this is a minority
measure. I think that it has a great deal of widespread support, but I suspect that my hon. Friend and I
are agreed that there must be a better way.
We have rightly found—again this is a bit of a ritual —that there is traditional obstruction
to the Bill. That is what Oppositions are for. We recognise that, and if roles were reversed we would be
doing the same. However, I suspect that never before have the Opposition taken their case to the
lengths we have seen in respect of this measure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr.
Stevens) said, we have witnessed the spectacle of GLC officials giving Opposition Members their
briefs. I have not seen that before, although it may have happened.

Mr. Cartwright: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that
the first Standing Committee on which I sat, on the Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill, was dominated by
Government spokesmen reading Treasury briefs and Opposition spokesmen reading oil company
briefs? There is nothing wrong with briefs.

Mr. Powley: I shall not dispute that, nor that it has
happened before, but whether it has happened to this extent, I cannot say.
Briefs have been prepared for the Opposition, and Opposition Members have used them with their
traditional eloquence. Although I served on the Rates Bill Standing Committee, I have never experienced
as much lobbying through my postbag as I have on this subject. There has been tremendous
correspondence by those opposed to the measure. I suspect that those opposing the Bill have given a
number of misleading facts and figures about the Bill. My correspondence shows that the public have
the wrong end of the stick on a number of issues. Only this weekend,

I received a hand-written letter from someone within the GLC area about the ILEA proposals. The
correspondent was under the impression that education was being taken over solely by an appointed
body of officials. We all know that that is not the case. I wonder where such misleading information
arose.
I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) volunteered that
any of his officials would be pleased to give Conservative Members any information that they desired.
In one of the metropolitan countries, I was talking to an official of one of the councils. He told me
— this is not secondhand information—that he had been prohibited from speaking to
hon. Members about the abolition of the metropolitan councils.

Mr. Cowans: Which council?

Mr. Powley: I shall not give the name of the
gentleman, nor the authority for which he worked, but he assured me that he had been prohibited from
speaking to Members of Parliament. I found that sad, and I suspect that that action would not receive
the support of Opposition Members.
It has been said that this policy was a last-minute addition to the Conservative party's manifesto. I do
not know when it was written into the Conservative party manifesto because I was not privileged to
have such information, but those of us who have been involved in local government for a considerable
time — there are Opposition Members with a longer service than mine of 12 or 14 years
— have been unhappy. I was unhappy with the GLC and metropolitan county councils
arrangement when it was set up, and I became increasingly unhappy with it as the years went by. Finally,
in the three or four years before the 1983 general election it became patently obvious that there were a
number of abuses in local government, and that the GLC and metropolitan county councils should be
abolished. Many of us were suggesting that well before the Conservative party manifesto was written in
1983, or whenever it was written. The Conservative party has had this policy for a long time.
I also support the motion because, the longer this issue drags on, undoubtedly the more waste there will
be and the more irresponsible actions will be committed by the GLC and the metropolitan county
councils. I can give an example of the irresponsible behaviour. It is clear that this is the Government's
policy, and one would have thought that under such a premise there would not have been any
recruitment of staff. I do not read The Guardian, but somebody showed it to me because he
was appalled at what was happening. In the public appointments section of the issue of 30 January
1985—

Mr. Tony Banks: Tell us what is in The
Sun.

Mr. Powley: I do not read The Sun either. I
am only kidding the House that I can actually read. I was shown the public appointments section of
The Guardian in which the GLC, in January 1985, knowing that it was the Government's policy
to abolish it, was advertising for an officer for "The Women's Committee — A Voice for
Women in London", for a "Grants Monitoring Adviser", for "Equalities Officers", and for a part-time
research assistant in the "Police Committee Support Unit". If anyone is interested, that latter post carries
a salary of £12,000 to £14,700 a year.
The GLC was also advertising for an officer for the "Ethnic Minorities Unit", for a "Race Relations
Adviser", for an "Outreach and Liaison Worker for Youth", and for a "Joint Deputy Head of Grants
Division". Those posts were advertised by the GLC at salaries of £13,000 and more a year,
when we all know that in one way or another the GLC will be abolished—and good riddance to
it.
The House of Lords may make some amendments to the Bill—I hope that there will be
none—but we all know that at the end of the day the GLC will be abolished, as will the
metropolitan counties. In those circumstances, no responsible organisation should be appointing
officers at large salaries. The longer we leave it, the more abuses there will be. More staff will be
appointed and more redundancy payments will be needed.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I am finding it difficult to
follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. The logic of his argument is that there is no point in having
debates in this House on any measures whatever because the Government will use their large majority to
secure whatever they want. The logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we should abolish not
only the GLC and the metropolitan counties but this place, too.

Mr. Powley: That is not the logic of my argument.
My argument is that there is no need at the present time for the authorities to make additional staff
appointments. They already have more than sufficient staff to do their work. The local authorities are
deliberately attempting to appoint as many staff as they possibly can in the time left at their disposal.
That is irresponsible behaviour.
I suggest that the House should approve the motion, because the country cannot afford the GLC or the
six metropolitan counties.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: I should like to comment on some
of the general arguments just made by the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley).
The hon. Gentleman put the worrying argument for all of us who believe in democracy and local
government—it was brought up on many occasions by Conservative Members in the Standing
Committee and it is the essence of Conservative party propaganda — that because
Conservatives disagree with certain aspects of GLC and metropolitan counties' policy, and as those
policies cannot be overturned through the ballot box, it is necessary to use the Conservative party's
parliamentary majority to abolish a tier of local government. That is an argument which the hon.
Gentleman has used—

Mr. Powley: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: The hon. Gentleman has used that
argument in regard to policy but not in regard to the structure of local government.
It is very worrying that throughout the debates so far Conservative Members have been very keen to
talk about policy — there are genuine disagreements about policy, and that is the essence of
democracy—but they have not been prepared to talk about the structure of local government.
The hon. Gentleman fell into that trap in his speech.

Mr. Powley: If I remember my words correctly, I said
that I was unhappy with the GLC and the six metropolitan counties when they were first set up, and that
I became

increasingly concerned about their activities as the years went by. I am not arguing that the GLC and the
six metropolitan counties should be abolished because of their present policies. I said that I had
misgivings about them when they were originally set up. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Official
Report tomorrow, he will see that that is what I said.

Mr. Fatchett: The evidence which the hon. Gentleman
produced to support his assumption was in relation not to structure but to policy. I believe that the
Official Report will show that I am correct in that respect.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there must be a better way to process the legislation.
That better way is not through the passing of a timetable motion or the use of the Government's large
majority, but through a proper preparation for the legislation.
We strongly object to the timetable motion because the Government have not prepared the ground for a
major change in local government structure. The Government are afraid of having any sort of
independent inquiry such as a Royal Commission or a Select Committee. There should have been a
report from a Royal Commission or a Select Committee so that we could study the arguments and
conclusions. Instead of proceeding in that way, the Government rushed into legislation without getting
the professional advice of local government officers or of professional bodies. They have proceeded
without the support of the electorate in the areas covered by the GLC and the metropolitan counties. I
suspect that if this legislation were put to a referendum in the GLC area it would be heavily defeated,
and that the same would happen in the metropolitan counties. All the available evidence supports that
contention.
I repeat that there should have been proper preparation before legislation was introduced. There should
have been an independent inquiry, together with some test of opinion in the metropolitan counties and
the GLC. The only conclusion that one can possibly draw is that the Government avoided those
avenues of approach because they were afraid of independent opinion and afraid of the ballot
box.

Mr. Powley: rose—

Mr. Fatchett: I shall not give way to the hon.
Gentleman, who made a lengthy speech.
If the Government were not afraid, we would not be discussing a timetable motion tonight. Only a small
part of the Bill has been debated in Standing Committee. The Bill has in no way been subject to public
scrutiny or to any sort of democratic accountability. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should
have been a better way. It should have been through proper preparation rather than by introducing a
timetable motion at this early stage.
The proceedings of the Committee have been very important in exposing the threadbare nature of the
Government's argument. The threadbare nature of their argument has been shown in three
areas.

Mr. Boyes: Does my hon. Friend find it surprising
that the Secretary of State for the Environment has taken no part whatever in the work of the
Committee? Does he find it surprising that he has played no part in the debate this evening, not even
staying to listen to the arguments? Does my hon. Friend think that it is because the right hon. Gentleman
does not understand what the Bill is about that


he does not support it, or is it that he has no satisfactory argument against the points that we have raised
repeatedly in Committee?

Mr. Fatchett: I am not surprised that the Secretary of
State has taken no part in this debate or in the proceedings in Committee. If I were responsible for the
legislation, I would also do my best to avoid any debate on it. My hon. Friend shows yet again that he
has great faith in human nature. His hope that the Secretary of State would want to be present and put
his argument is sincere but, I suspect, sadly misplaced in this context.
The Committee has exposed the Government on three major points. I shall run through them briefly,
because yet again they argue for more time, debate and investigation of the clauses in Committee.
The Government told us that they estimate that £50 million will be saved by abolishing the six
metropolitan counties. A similar figure has been given for the GLC. When we have asked written
parliamentary questions and raised this issue in Committee, the Minister has been unable to provide us
with any detailed breakdown of that figure. If the Government have a figure, they have a responsibility
to the House and to the ratepayers in the areas involved to tell us how they arrived at it. The
Government cannot say that they have a figure of £50 million for the metropolitan counties and
yet be unable to tell us the figure for West Yorkshire and the other five metropolitan counties. The only
possible conclusion is that the Government do not have figures, and that they have pulled that figure of
£50 million out of a hat in much the same way as they pulled the legislation out of a hat in the
first place.
The same argument can be made about jobs. The Government say that there will be job losses. In
Committee we have asked in which areas those jobs will be lost and what services will be involved, yet
the Government have again given us no answers. We can only conclude once again that the Government
do not have any hard evidence to support the assertions in the financial memorandum to the Bill.
Therefore, on the grounds of cost and jobs alone, the Government's case is threadbare and falls
apart.
Another worry was expressed in Committee which I think also concerned Conservative Members. On
occasion, Conservative Members have made very telling and useful interventions, asking whether the
Minister can guarantee that certain services will be maintained in West Yorkshire, the other metropolitan
counties or perhaps even in the Greater London area. Of course, they do not obtain any such
guarantees from the Minister, because he cannot give them. I suspect that the reason is that he is not
prepared to say, at this stage, that rate support grant will be available for the services when they are
devolved to joint boards or committees, to the London boroughs and to the metropolitan districts. The
Government cannot show that we shall not lose in terms of quality of service as a result of the Bill.
Indeed, the fact that the Minister cannot give his hon. Friends any assurances leads only to the
conclusion that he exects to make savings, not from abolishing a tier of local government or from a
structural change, but from reducing services and the quality of services available to ratepayers in those
areas.

Dr. Hampson: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not
saying that the cities and towns of West Yorkshire are incapable of operating without the West
Yorkshire metropolitan county. Since he places such faith in grand commissions and inquiries, I should
tell him that Redcliffe-Maud, which sat for six years, specifically said that West Yorkshire would be
best served by five separate authorities and not by a metropolitan county. The hon. Gentleman knows
full well that there is no logic in a small town such as Wakefield running its own education when cities
such as Bristol, Leicester and Nottingham cannot do so.

Mr. Fatchett: If the hon. Gentleman had read the
report of our debates in Committee he would have been interested in the comments of the hon. Member
for Bradford, North (Mr. Lawler). Bradford metropolitan district council is considering taking legal
action on the rate support grant settlement which the Government have given it and against that
background the hon. Gentleman asked for certain assurances. The Government could not give those
assurances because they are not in a position to say that the necessary RSG will in future by devolved
to the districts. Again, the only conclusion is that the Government can reach that figure for savings only
by reducing the number and quality of services available to ratepayers and the public in the metropolitan
areas.
We need more debate on the Bill in Committee, because it poses constitutional issues and is directly
relevant to every one of the 13 million people living in the metropolitan counties. If we are not allowed
to scrutinise and question the Bill in greater detail, the House will probably vote for a reduction in
services and in the number of jobs in those areas without even being given the necessary information by
the Government.
This is a threadbare Bill, and it is an insult to the House to push through such a Bill on a timetable
motion, because we have not been provided with the necessary information, and the Committee has not
been provided with it either. The Bill is also an insult to all those elected members in the metropolitan
areas and the GLC and to all those who work for those councils. If the Government had a case to make
they would have made it in Committee and in the House, and they would have published the available
evidence. They have not done so and have gone to the last resort of any Government defeated in
argument and used their majority to stifle debate and to push through a Bill which has nothing to do with
local government but much to do with the Prime Minister's vanity and, as someone has said, with the 10
years in which the Conservative party has been hijacked from the Right. That is what the Bill is about,
and it has nothing to do with local government.

Mr. Timothy Wood: During
many hours in Committee we often heard the argument that the Bill does not have sufficient support,
has not received careful examination, and so on. That argument is nonsense. The right hon. Member for
Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) commented on the absence of an inquiry. During the past 20
years there have been a multitude of inquiries into local government. Consequently, we have had an
opportunity to see the results of some of the experiments that have followed them. The results of those
experiments demonstrate all too clearly that the metropolitan counties


and the GLC lead to duplication and extravagance that can and should be avoided. In the light of that
experience, the Bill was rightly introduced.

Mr. Nellist: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Bill
is so worthy as to justify his presence here tonight, why did he not make such speeches in Committee?
Why is it that 10 out of 19 Tory Back Benchers in Committee have not said a single word about the
implications for jobs or for ratepayers' services and so on? Why has the hon. Gentleman been so silent
for the past four or five weeks?

Mr. Wood: I have listened to the wealth of argument
put forward by Conservative Members and to the paucity of argument by the Opposition. Frankly, I
found that the Opposition's repetition did not go anywhere towards presenting a case. As my hon.
Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) has said, there is a need to examine the detail of
the Bill, but the Committee has been going through an absurd
ritual—

Mr. Tony Banks: It is called
democracy.

Mr. Wood: If only democracy were being served by
the Opposition's actions and if only we were examining the minutiae of the Bill and considering the
arguments in order to see how best to make the Bill effective. That is not what we have been doing. On
every clause the Opposition have been reiterating a series of particular
contentions.

Mr. Dykes: Surely my right hon. Friend must be
aware that several Conservative Members have repeatedly tabled very thoughtful amendments which are
designed not only to improve the Bill but to provide for a successor structure. Those amendments will
be tabled again at later stages in Committee and perhaps in the other place. The Bill is intrinsically far
too controversial for people to accept because there has not been examination by any expert outside
body beforehand. That was offered by the then Conservative leader of the GLC in 1976, but it was
rejected at that stage by the party, which said that no such inquiry was necessary because the GLC was
the jewel in the crown and it had been created in 1963 by the then Conservative
Government.

Mr. Wood: Some of the more lucid arguments and
constructive suggestions in Committee were put forward by my hon. Friends. I regret that the
arguments have tended to be somewhat repetitious. They have concentrated on the belief that the
residuary body should be elected, and points following from that, but our argument has been expressed
with more lucidity than the Opposition's.
One of the Opposition's arguments is that big is beautiful. They say that the metropolitan counties and
the GLC are better than boroughs and districts. An argument that has been repeated time and again is
that districts and boroughs cannot and will not co-operate and that on the borders between the local
authorities chaos will reign. It is said, for example, that roads and cycle tracks will not meet. Already
throughout the country there are a multitude of boundaries between local authorities. Of course, some
accommodation has to be and is made between the different authorities every day of the
week.

Mr. Fatchett: With the exception of the metropolitan
areas, under the Bill there will be two-tier local government in the shire counties and shire
districts.

Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman is right. The shire
counties have much smaller districts than the metropolitan and GLC areas. The districts in the shire
counties do not cover education and various other aspects of local government which can adequately
be covered by the metropolitan districts and London boroughs.

Dr. Hampson: The Redcliffe-Maud report specifically
prefers a variation, only it says that the shire counties should be single-tier and the metropolitan counties
two-tier.

Mr. Wood: That is right. There is no reason why
different areas of the country should not be administered in modified ways.
A further argument that has been expressed repeatedly is that money available to the metropolitan
counties and to the GLC will not be available to the lower tiers. We want less money to be spent, but
for it to be spent more effectively when it is. I am sure that the lower tier authorities will be as able as the
met counties and the GLC to provide necessary services.
I have been involved with a lower tier authority and I found it objectionable that only metropolitan
authorities and the GLC are regarded as having the expertise to carry out a variety of tasks. The truth is
that lower tier authorities can combine to gain the expertise when that is necessary.
The Opposition have used the same arguments again and again in discussions on one clause after
another. If we do not constrain the debate, they will use the same arguments ad nauseam in future hours
in Committee. We should resist that. We should also resist the hope expressed by the hon. Member for
Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) that we should sit for hour after hour in the Committee for the
next few weeks. There is no need to sit in Committee night after night, week after week, to examine the
Bill. The Bill can be examined well in the time proposed in the motion. We might then avoid some
unnecessary repetition and get on with the task of preparing for more effective local government,
administered by the districts and boroughs, instead of accepting the duplication and waste caused by
the metropolitan counties and the GLC.

Mr. Roland Boyes: I am pleased that the hon.
Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) paid me the compliment of saying that I wanted to delve into detail
on the Bill. I should be prepared to sit day and night, week after week to put the case for Tyne and
Wear, the other met counties and the GLC. Our case is overwhelming.
An important emphasis has been made tonight which I have suspected for some time. I regret that the
hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) is not here, because he provided the key to the
Government's attitude towards local democracy, and, I believe, to democracy itself. He said that there
was no point in appointing people to positions in the metropolitan counties or the GLC because, since
the Government have a majority, the decision has already been made, despite the fact that the
Committee is still sitting, and that the Bill has to return to the House and be considered in another place.
The Government's assumption is that the Bill will be passed, and that it will be implemented. The
democratic process will become meaningless because of the diktat of No. 10.
I am pleased that the hon. Member put on record what many of us have accused Government Members
of in the past few months.

Mr. Wood: By giving the Bill a Second Reading the
House accepted the principle of abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan counties. The Committee is
considering the details of that Bill, not the principle. It is irresponsible to appoint further people to those
bodies when their time, according to the principle agreed by the House, is
limited.

Mr. Boyes: We dug a hole and the hon. Member for
Stevenage (Mr. Wood) has fallen into it. The principle of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds,
East (Mr. Healey) is that if one is in a hole one should stop digging. Earlier today we dug a hole and
several Government Members were chucked into it. The hon. Member for Stevenage is now burying
himself in that hole.
My constituency is in the Tyne and Wear area. My constituents believe that the principle behind the Bill
is a wicked act of political vindictiveness. Discussions in Committee have done nothing to allay my
fears. It will be clear to the people whom I represent that Government Members do not want to hear the
arguments. They do not want to know about the problems in the Tyne and Wear area. I warn the
Minister that he will hear in Committee about the unemployment problems in the area.
The Government are acting in an underhand manner. They cancelled elections to a body which has not
yet been abolished. That is without precedent. The Secretary of State has tried to disclaim our
accusation that it is without precedent, but he has not been able to produce an example in local
government of elections to a body being cancelled before Parliament has agreed to the abolition of that
body. I believe that democracy is about people and people expressing their wishes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) referred to inquiries and opinion polls.
An opinion poll about the abolition proposals conducted in the Prime Minister's constituency showed
that the overwhelming majority were not in favour. It would be better to judge people's opinions through
the ballot box, which is what the Opposition would have done.

Mr. Fatchett: Why did the Prime Minister not do
that?

Mr. Boyes: The right hon. Lady does not believe in
the ballot box. Indeed, there was an opportunity to hold an election this year, when the question of
abolition would have been a major issue and the people could have made their decision. Surely such an
election would have been a godsend to the Government—they would have had their answer
through the ballot box.
I have always believed that those whom the people elect are accountable for their actions. If the
electorate is not happy with what they do, it can replace them. If the people of Tyne and Wear had not
been happy with the services being provided, undoubtedly they would have expressed that through the
ballot box. But they did not have an opportunity to do so because the Government are not interested in
the democratic process.
Not only have the Government cancelled the elections, they are now trying to cancel the discussions.
We have dealt with only 17 clauses, but we are to be allowed only 40 minutes for each of the remaining
clauses. That is not

sufficient to deal with six metropolitan counties and the GLC and hear the arguments of the Opposition
and the Government on issues of vital importance to those whom each and every one of us represent in
this House. If that is not a negation of democracy. I do not know what is.
I am worried that we appear to be moving down the road towards dictatorship from No.
10—No. 10 decides and the Conservative troops, like little lackeys, do as they are told. When
democracy is being threatened and destroyed, there is danger that this House will go down the same
road.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend has correctly
referred to the sad retreat from democracy, where the Government are not prepared even to debate the
issues. He said that there would be only 40 minutes discussion on each of the remaining clauses, which
means 5 minutes discussion for each of the great county areas such as the Tyne and Wear and my area
of Greater Manchester.
When the Under-Secretary spoke for an hour in Committee last Thursday, he mentioned Greater
Manchester not once. That was despite repeated questions. If, during such lengthy and important
debates, Ministers are not prepared to answer substantive questions, what chance is there to obtain
answers when the debate is cut to 40 minutes?

Mr. Boyes: I agree with my hon. Friend, who made
an important intervention. From a different viewpoint he has illustrated the way in which our questions
have been treated in Committee—

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Contemptuously.

Mr. Boyes: I agree with my hon.
Friend—indeed the word "contemptuous" would apply equally to this evening's debate. The
Leader of the House made a flippant speech on a most serious issue. The hon. Member for Fulham
(Mr. Stevens) made a long filibuster. Conservative Members accuse us of filibustering, but the House
has had an opportunity tonight to decide which side of the House is taking the proposals
seriously.
Conservative Members do not have the support of Conservatives in my area. When the Tyne and Wear
county council debated the issue of elections, one clause in the resolution called on the Government to
hold an immediate comprehensive and impartial inquiry before any re-organisation of local
government takes place and this County Council pledges to abide by the findings of such an
inquiry.
That clause was passed by 59 votes to one—and the vote against was not from a Conservative
member. That shows that the vast majority of Tyne and Wear Conservatives are worried for
democracy.
The Financial Times on 28 October quotes the leader of the Conservative group on the Tyne
and Wear county council as saying that the Tyne and Wear county council could be run on much more
streamlined lines and confine itself to broad strategic functions. That is something that the hon. Member
for Stevenage has not understood. He has sat in Committee hour after hour and has obviously not
listened to a word that has been said. Not one Opposition Member has said that district and borough
councillors are any less able than county councillors. We have never said that district and borough
council officers are any less able than county officers. We have said that there are certain aspects of the
county councils' strategic functions that are essential. Even the leader of the Tyne and Wear
Conservative group has recognised that.
The Local Councils Association for Yorkshire and Cleveland has made its views clear in a letter. I am
sorry that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) is not present. He is always telling us about the
attitude in Cleveland. Mr. Ian Strong, the secretary of the association, said in the letter:
This Association representing 430 member Parish and Town Councils in North, South and
West Yorkshire and Cleveland is very much opposed to the present legislation to abolish the
Metropolitan County Councils. In this it is strongly supported by the National Association of Local
Councils who represent 8000 Parish and Town Councils.
The Association feels that the legislation is ill-conceived and unlikely to achieve any of the
objects declared by the Government.
The evidence against the proposals is overwhelming.
I have said time and again in Committee that it is important that the Tyne and Wear authority is not
demolished. One of the losses to Tyne and Wear will be section 137 and the twopenny rate. I have not
received any answers to my questions on that point, but I ask Conservative Members to reflect on it.
The £2 million involved for Tyne and Wear is used to protect jobs and to create further jobs in
a region that consistently has the highest level of unemployment. Even if the grant is phased out over a
period of time, will the Government allow the borough councils to raise an additional twopenny rate to
enable Tyne and Wear to counter the massive levels of unemployment that it is facing?
Perhaps I may give some figures to illustrate my remarks. Anyone who reads the Committee debates
will know that I have quoted many figures during the past few weeks. Since 1979, 85,000 jobs have
been lost in the Tyne and Wear area, and there have been nearly 65,000 redundancies. More than
100,000 people are without work in the area, and the figure has doubled during the past five years.
Unemployment at 20 per cent. is the third highest in mainland Britain. We believe that it is essential to
have a strategic authority to help to counter the Government's monetarist policies, although it is
extremely difficult to do so. We are running backwards, but at least we are trying to protect some jobs.
We must have a strategic authority for economic development, job creation and the fight against
unemployment.
Before I conclude, I wish to ask some questions that I hope will be answered tonight. My hon. Friend
the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) and other hon. Members have talked about costs. I have
asked Ministers several times, but have never received an answer, for their estimate of the cost savings
or losses to be made from the abolition to Tyne and Wear metropolitan council. What will be the cost
advantages? I am prepared to listen carefully to what Ministers say, but the only evidence that I have,
from reports carried out by independent consultants, is that it will cost the ratepayers of Tyne and Wear
money if the council is abolished. I am talking not only about direct costs, but about the tremendous
social costs. I cannot understand how the Government arrived at a figure of £50 million. I
should have thought that the way to discover the cost of abolition of the six metropolitan counties
would be to discover the cost of abolition of each one and then to add them together. But the Minister
has no figures that he can substantiate. It is about time that the Government instituted a proper
independent inquiry.
What are the manpower implications of abolition? Will there be fewer or more people working? We
have said all

along that abolition will lead to massive unemployment. Is that true? Again, the Government have not
determined what the manpower implications will be.
What will happen to the effectiveness of services? We believe that our councillors should be answerable
to the electorate for the services that they provide, but we know that only 20 per cent. of the services
provided by the metropolitan counties will be transferred to the boroughs. Therefore, 80 per cent. of
services will be determined by the most centralised Government in western Europe—probably
the most centralised in Western capitalism. The Government want less and less accountability whereas
the Opposition—the true democrats—want more and more accountability.
May I emphasise my point with the independent voice of Peter Hall, the respected professor of
geography at the university of Reading. He says:
First, most of Europe is tending to move in the opposite direction to us: in the direction of
greater autonomy and greater accountability for top-level metropolitan—regional authorities
… There is overwhelming evidence that most of our neighbours have found it necessary to
create metropolitan planning authorities for their capital city regions and for some other big urban areas
… What they"—
the Government—
should not be discussing at all, unless our European neighbours have collectively taken leave
of their senses, is the need for some form of co-ordinated metropolitan government for our great urban
areas. The issue is not whether, but how.
We want to argue the issue, and we are prepared to sit there day and night to do so. We want to argue
the Bill line by line, but the Government, being barren of argument, want to curtail discussion by using
this timetable motion.

Dr. Keith Hampson: It is useful to follow the hon.
Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) because the existence of Tyne and Wear
metropolitan council makes nonsense of the argument on which the Opposition rest their
case—the importance of having inquiries or commissions before this sort of thing is done. No
inquiry or commission recommended the creation of something called the Tyne and Wear metropolitan
council. Since the creation of the councils by a Conservative Government in the 1970s, I have believed
strongly—I put forward my views on it when I was a parliamentary private secretary at the
Department of the Environment — that we created bodies which did not have a valid range of
functions or a valid use of resources.
I have obtained from the Library a background paper on local government inquiries. It states that there
were reports on local government in the conurbations in 1947. The exercise was repeated in 1956 and a
commission was set up in 1958 which reported in 1961. The Labour Government of Lord Wilson of
Rievaulx, as he now is, set up the Redcliffe-Maud commission in 1966, which reported in 1972. That
was followed by the Layfield inquiry. Unfortunately, the commissions and inquiries never agree. Indeed,
they have not often agreed within themselves, and the Redcliffe-Maud commission was a notable
example. Nor was there a consensus after it had reported. There is no unanimity merely because of an
inquiry. The Government usually change a good proportion of the proposals that are contained in the
reports.
Nobody could have crawled over the area of local government with greater thoroughness, in more depth
or for a longer period than the Redcliffe-Maud commission.


In the end, it proposed establishing only three metropolitan counties, with different functions from those
of the present metropolitan counties. The commission proposed Greater Manchester, which for some
strange reason it called SELNEC, Merseyside and Greater Birmingham. The Labour Government,
including the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), considered the proposals
and, in effect, said, "No, we do not agree with this." To the three proposed metropolitan counties they
added West Yorkshire and South Hampshire. They said that they wanted that level of authority to be
the primary tier in local government and they wanted the metropolitan counties to have responsibility for
education. The Redcliffe-Maud commission did not want that to happen.
Labour Members call for commissions of inquiry but they seem not to have read the Redcliffe-Maud
report. It was not proposed in the Redcliffe-Maud report that responsibility for education should go to
the metropolitan counties. However, the Labour Government in 1969–70 proposed that it
should. The succeeding Tory Government changed the proposals once again and added South
Yorkshire and, for some unknown reason, Tyne and Wear. They removed South Hampshire from the
proposals and changed the powers of the metropolitan counties. They ended up without education and
housing responsibilities. Indeed, they ended up with very little. Only a quarter of the resources which
are spent to the benefit of the people, the customers, is spent by the metropolitan counties. That is to be
contrasted with the shire counties' 80 per cent., and the GLC spends only one sixth. The metropolitan
counties do not have a valid range of functions.
We have heard many arguments about whether it is more or less democratic to have joint boards
composed of district councillors to run transport. Are joint boards more democratic than passenger
transport executives? No one in my constituency thinks that the passenger transport executive is
especially democratic. Equally, no one knows how to get at or control it. That probably applies also to
the police authority. The substance in the argument for democracy is marginal.
Why should Wakefield, which is so far from Otley, decide which streets in Otley should have double
yellow lines, which should have no yellow lines and which should have single yellow lines? Leeds could
be responsible for most functions of that sort with joint boards of district councillors responsible for
the other functions.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Greater Manchester area was
called SELNEC because the initials represent South East Lancashire and North East Cheshire. It is a
term that I do not like, but it is much better than "joint board". All historical precedent and all
considered judgment led to the conclusion that there should be an authority covering the Greater
Manchester area. Only the Government have failed to learn from the experience and reports of the early
1970s or from the debates that ensued. Reports do not provide definitive answers, but they engage the
nation in debate, and it is to be hoped that that allows the Government of the day to legislate with some
credibility. Unfortunately, the present Government have proved unable to do
so.

Dr. Hampson: I think that the most recent exercise
was a cock-up. Should a town such as Wakefield, or a small

part of Greater Manchester such as Tameside, have authority for education, when education is not in
the control of Bristol, Leicester or Nottingham, for example?
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney as Secretary of State proposed "organic
change." He recognised that certain things were not right. He did not embark on a great debate or set up
a commission of inquiry before he submitted his proposals. The system that should be in place is
certainly not the one that we have now. Therefore, the case for abolition is overwhelming. I am not
aware of the position taken by the Labour party in Tyne and Wear, but until the Government announced
their proposals the Labour party in every other metropolitan county was against the continuation of the
metropolitan counties. All the Labour-controlled metropolitan districts knew only too well of the
irritation of dealing with the metropolitan counties and they did not believe that they should continue,
just as Mr. Livingstone took the view that the GLC should not exist.
We are not having just a ritualistic dance. This sort of debate is a farce. The Committee stage of this
type of legislation cannot continue in the way that it has during the time I have been a Member. We have
all played this game. We have all run on through the night debating smaller and smaller points line after
line. I spent 85 hours in Committee debating the Education Bill.
The House must change its procedures. I believe that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)
recommended in The Times that, from Second Reading onwards, all Bills should be timetabled.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is present. I hope that he will confirm that point. I would like other
Opposition Members to agree that we cannot continue with this type of debate, using hackneyed
arguments time and again. I should like the Opposition to agree that we shall change our way of running
this business.

Mr. Straw: rose—

Dr. Hampson: I have
finished.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I thought that the hon. Member
for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) was giving way.

Dr. Hampson: That was my last point, Mr.
Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that the Front Benchers
wish the winding-up to start at 9.40 pm. A number of hon. Members want to take part in the debate. I
hope that hon. Members will have consideration for the claims of others.

Mr. Tony Banks: The Leader of the House
treated hon. Members to a light-hearted trek through the timetabling motion. He suggested that a large
number of people outside are waiting to throw their caps into the air when the GLC and metropolitan
county councils are abolished. If the right hon. Gentleman peers out of the House and looks over to
county hall on the other side of the river, he will see that valid statistic showing that 74 per cent. of
Londoners are opposed to the GLC's abolition. Whatever the Government's support in the House,
there is not the same support outside in the big, wide world.
The guillotine motion is symptomatic of the Government's approach to the issue of the abolition of the
GLC and the metropolitan county councils. No one has said that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley
and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has misled the House in telling us that the


abolition pledge was written into the 1983 Tory election manifesto personally by the Prime Minister and
against the advice of the Conservative party policy committee. That pledge was certainly written in
without the Prime Minister showing the courtesy of consulting the Conservative party GLC members.
They were as surprised by that manifesto pledge as was the Conservative party policy committee.
The White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" attracted, as far as we know, more than 2,500 submissions,
the overwhelming majority of which were totally opposed to the Government's proposals. Yet the
Government have steadfastly refused to put those submissions in the Library. The Government have
said, "If you want to find out what people have said, write to them to find out." How on earth can hon.
Members do a proper job if they are denied access to the information sent in by a large number of
organisations?
We have had the measures to abolish the GLC and metropolitan county council elections, and now we
have the guillotine when only 16 of the 98 clauses have been debated. The Opposition have not
filibustered in Committee. We make no apology for debating in some detail and at some length the
intricate proposals raised in the Bill. We must be clear that the Bill was based on the Prime Minister's
party political spite. It will now be bulldozed through the House using what can be described only as the
"zombie" vote of Members of Parliament. Most Conservative Members cannot even be bothered to
equate themselves with the arguments involved in the abolition. Most of them absent themselves from
the Chamber, probably because they cannot take the sight of the Secretary of State being butchered
more than he has already been in the short Session until now.
The Secretary of State has been staggering around like some sort of punch-drunk fighter. To bring
some relief to the right hon. Gentleman, the Government have brought in the Minister for Local
Government, who has scarcely done much better than the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the
Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who knows the Minister for Local Government quite well,
tells me that the Minister has aged 10 years since he has been in charge of the Bill. I do not know
whether that is true, but I believe that all the Environment Ministers who are now associated with the Bill
are likely to find themselves politically dead—never mind aged about 10 years—as
Conservative Members of Parliament realise the electoral consequences of the Government's actions
and realise that they will lose council seats and, at the next general election, parliamentary seats. That
does not worry me; it encourages me greatly to persuade the Government to carry on with their crazy,
suicidal course. However, it worries right hon. and hon. Conservative Members, particularly the right
hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who at least has some foresight and can
understand what is going on and what problems the Conservative party will face in future
elections.
The Opposition have tried to point out the implications of the Government's proposals for London and
the metropolitan areas. We have heard nothing about the savings that the Government hope will accrue,
about the level of likely redundancies, or about the joint boards and quangos. We have not reached any
of those clauses, and now we shall be prevented from giving those important matters the consideration
that they deserve.
The Minister commented a little while ago that
inquiries do not allay controversy.

That comment was made in the context of Redcliffe-Maud and the Royal Commission, but the Minister
must know that Royal Commissions and inquiries at least give some intellectual justification for the case
that is being put by the Government. It does not mean that the Opposition will go away. Even if the
proposal had been based upon the recommendations of a Royal Commission, there is no doubt that
many Opposition Members would have opposed the Government. That is the Opposition's duty, but at
least the Government's intellectual position would have been considerably stronger.
I am trying to throw the Minister a lifeline, because when the compromise comes, and it will, and he
knows it, perhaps in another place, that is the type of argument that he should be using. If the
Government's proposals were based upon the recommendations of a Royal Commission or an inquiry,
there would be a degree of intellectual justification for them even though there would still be
disagreement, but there is no intellectual justification for what the Government are putting forward.
It is no good Conservative Members "rubbishing" the great weight of information that has come to the
Committee saying that the Government's proposals are wrong. How many authorities can the
Government quote in defence of their proposals? How many independent bodies can the Government
quote to say that they have it right? The only people on whom the Government have been so far able to
rely have been a number of local authority Conservative leaders; and they would support the
Government, would they not? No one from outside who has any standing, objectivity or impartiality has
supported the Government. How can Conservative Members persist in arguing that the Government's
case is proper, just and right in defiance of all opinion — electoral, professional and academic
— coming from outside? It is nonsense. The Government know that. Ministers are in many
ways prejudicing their political futures by supporting the Bill. It should be thrown out, as should this
timetable motion.

Dr. Ian Twinn: The
Committee has sat through over 100 hours of repetitious speeches. Most of the speeches that we have
heard from Opposition members of the Committee have been Second Reading speeches. One or two
of them this evening have been Queen's Speech speeches because they have become so general and
have ranged so widely and so often off the point of the Bill.
On a number of occasions we have listened word for word to the same speech from different members
of the Committee, and even from the same members. This evening the debate has been dropped even
lower by the speech by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who has reduced the
debate to a political jibe without any substance. To be fair to him, he has been one of the members of
the Committee whose argument has been more detailed. He has had plenty of people to help him write
his speeches. There has been a galaxy of 27 of them. On occasions he has been effective in putting over
his point of view, but alas not this evening.
Progress in Committee has been resisted by Opposition Members who have made speeches for the
sake of making them or for the sake of the local press.

Mr. John McWilliam: What is
the hon. Gentleman's speech about?

Dr. Twinn: My speech is about what I thought the
debate was about — the progress of the Bill in Committee and whether we should have a
timetable motion. It is not a speech in which I shall make cheap political jibes or go over the principle of
the Bill, which was voted on at Second Reading.
The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) suggested that there should be a timetable for all
Bills.

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
giving way. He is more courteous than his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr.
Hampson).
I believe in timetables for all Bills, but with the important proviso that the time taken should be under the
control, not of the Government, but of a Committee appointed by the House and that there should be
provision for the Standing Committee to seek more time if that became
necessary.

Dr. Twinn: I read the hon. Gentleman's article, which
has much to commend it. I go along with him. However, it would be a pity if, for the sake of being a
purist in these matters, we allowed the Bill to drift on in the aimless way in which it has been
progressing. We can make a start, albeit in a small way, with this timetable motion. It is not perfect, and
it is controlled by the Government, but let us hope that in future timetables will be controlled by a
Committee of the House and that we can have sensible debates on all Bills. I would welcome that.
It has been suggested that there has been no thought or discussion about the proposals in the Bill. That
is an astounding statement. One expects Opposition Members to state that view as a political point, but
the astounding aspect is that they appear to say it with a sincerity which I can hardly believe they
feel.
There have been countless debates in the past 20 years about the nature of local government. Virtually
every possible combination of authorities has been proposed and discussed over the years. The House
and the country have had plenty of time to consider the best form of local government. When the
commitment to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties appeared in our election manifesto, the
electorate had the good sense to see that it was a good idea. It was certainly extremely popular in
Edmonton.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: In all these many debates over the
years, where were joint boards at the strategic level first suggested, outside the White Paper and the
Bill?

Dr. Twinn: I shall not be tempted down that path,
because other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. Joint boards are expedients, but I believe
that the rest of the proposals are worth those expedients. Politics are partly about compromise and
pragmatism.

Mr. Tony Favell (Stockport): Is not one of the great
advantages of joint boards the fact that every metropolitan district will be represented on those boards?
At present there is no guarantee that each district will be represented on a county council
committee.

Dr. Twinn: My hon. Friend is right. The Bill brings
democracy down to a smaller geographical and electoral area and will be widely welcomed for
that.
I am not surprised that the GLC is able to quote the figure that it got from somewhere of 74 per cent. of
Londoners supporting the council. If I spent millions of pounds on advertising, I would expect that sort
of support.
Otherwise, I would not spend the money. I am not surprised that there is some small support in the
opinion polls. However, when the GLC and the metropolitan counties have gone, there will be
widespread support for the new authorities and the old councils will not be missed.
In fact, in London we have had electoral tests of the popularity of the GLC's proposals. In my seat in
Edmonton, we had a GLC by-election, when the turnout halved. The arguments were ravaged by the
electorate, who did not turn up. It was a spurious and cynical move on behalf of the GLC to use
taxpayers' money for a test of its own opinion, and I am only pleased that it failed.
I hope that hon. Members will support the timetable motion so that my constituents in Edmonton have a
chance to be rid of the GLC and so that they can have elections and a local authority in Enfield which is
at a closer level, where they will appreciate it and be able to influence it.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Today's debate has been
characterised by being less lighthearted than many of the Committee sittings. We have also heard for the
first time from some Tory Members who said nothing in Committee but who seem happy to come to
the Chamber and say why its deliberations should be shortened.
The context of my arguments against the guillotine motion is narrow. In the explanatory and financial
memorandum of the Bill, the Secretary of State says that the aim of the Bill is to save about
£100 million by the abolition of the metropolitan counties and estimates a reduction in public
service manpower in those areas by about 7,100. Setting aside the argument that the Bill will deny 18
million people the right to vote, that first point alone justifies continuing the debate, but not at the level
that the Leader of the House proposes in his guillotine motion of 40 minutes per clause over the next
three and a half weeks. Not only have the central claims on manpower and services not been proven by
the Government, but on many occasions when I have put questions to Ministers about the so-called
savings from manpower changes or changes in specific services, I have been told to wait until debates
on later clauses in the Bill in the expectation that those debates would be of a similar character to those
on the first 16 clauses, with 56 hours of debate.
The Bill proposes that responsibility for services be returned to the district councils, for example in the
west midlands. Last year the Secretary of State said that most of the services would go back to the
districts, but we now know that fewer than 20 per cent. will. We have yet to debate some of them fully
in the Bill. One fact that has not yet come out of the debate, which of itself would justify extending the
time for debate, is that the services that are presently provided by the West Midlands county council,
according to the Secretary of State's grant-related expenditure assessment, are supposed to cost
£270 million this year. However, the target for the county council is set at £254
million. Therefore, through abolition the right hon. Gentleman expects the same services to be carried
out by district bodies, joint boards, residuary bodies, and so on, yet he has already cut the amount of
money that will go towards those services by £16 million. How will we have answers to
questions on whether it is the same service costing the ratepayer more or the same amount of money


paid by the ratepayer for a substantially lower service unless we are allowed more than a paltry 40
minutes for each clause remaining in the Bill?
On many occasions in Committee we have asked what financial savings will be made on each service
area. We have had no real answers from the Government. We have asked what manpower savings there
will be in each service area, and we have had no real figures from the Government. In at least three
service areas—I played a part in the debates on each one of them—the Secretary of
State has acknowledged that there will be no savings. Those three areas are waste disposal, probation
and archives. He has acknowledged that costs will rise in two service areas — coroners and
trading standards. Each time he says such things he also reflects on the fact that we shall go into those
matters in detail on later clauses. However, the fact remains that the six clauses designed to deal with the
so-called savings from staff transfers are likely to occupy about 280 minutes if the motion is passed.
Over 150,000 people work for the metropolitan county councils and the GLC. The Government will
dispose of about 534 jobs a minute in the later debates in Committee. People's lives and jobs are worth
more consideration than that.
There is not time to go into detail, so I shall give just a few brief examples. As reported at column 862,
when I asked the Minister in Committee about the waste disposal arrangements he said that the answers
would be given later in the debate. I asked about the cost involved for district councils in setting up
several different waste disposal plants and I pointed out that splitting waste disposal among seven
authorities in the west midlands would mean at least 9,000 extra pieces of paper relating to the transport
of hazardous waste across district boundaries, but the Minister had not costed it and had no facts or
figures to give. We need to go into those details.
We also asked how the Minister arrived at the figure of 7,100 lost jobs. Did he take the cuts planned for
each service and aggregate them across the county councils or did he set targets for each council and
then add them all together? Again, we received no answers. When I asked about planning, the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State specifically said, as reported at column 293, that he would reply
to my points later in the debate. On 22 January I asked about environment and land reclamation and the
impact on jobs. I was told to come back to that when we reached part VI of the Bill. Ministers have
constantly said that we shall come to these things later, but if the guillotine motion goes through there
will be no time for the answers to be given.
Perhaps those Tory Members for whom one job is insufficient to tax their energies or support their
lifestyles and who therefore need between two and 13 jobs can afford to be callous when discussing the
jobs of thousands of metropolitan county council employees, but in my area one third of a million
people are on the dole, there are 30 people chasing every vacancy and in one ward unemployment is
more than 32 per cent. In those circumstances, there will be no jobs for the hundreds or thousands
made redundant by the Bill. Yet the Government dismiss those people and their future at 40 minutes per
clause. The Bill is not about saving money and improving services. It is about abolishing Labour
councils because the Tories cannot defeat us at the ballot box. That

needs to be exposed in full debate in Committee. The jobs of 7,100 workers deserve more than
execution by the guillotine.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Every time the hon. Member
for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) speaks in the Committee he makes the same speech about job
losses, a speech which should he made in an unemployment debate, not in a debate about the future of
local government.
The whole House agrees that this is an important measure. It was set out clearly in the Conservative
manifesto. Indeed, the leader of the GLC, Mr. Ken Livingstone, at one stage supported the idea. The
Bill is absolutely right. It will lead to less government and to more, not less, accountability because local
people will be involved. I know from experience as a member of a London borough council that on
planning matters one always has to wait for the GLC's comments, which turn out not to be worth
listening to, so we proceed to deal with the matter locally.
The Bill will also lead ultimately to reduced expenditure. That is vital if we are to provide the assistance
that we genuinely wish to give to industry. The Opposition say that jobs will be lost as a result of the
Bill, but jobs have already been lost as a result of high rates caused by an unnecessary tier of
government. So far the Committee has dealt with 16 clauses out of 98, during 19 sittings covering 1,200
columns of the Official Report. We have had to endure sitting until 5 o'clock in the morning. I
know that Opposition Members feel strongly about the Bill. However, they know the procedures of the
House. They know that they are responsible for making progress. During every debate on every specific
clause, the whole team is wheeled out to repeat the same old arguments.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East says that there will be only 40 minutes to debate each
clause. I have no sympathy for the hon. Gentleman. If the Opposition had speeded up consideration of
the clauses, we could have been well on our way through the Bill. We could have considered the ILEA,
the police and transport—major subjects that the Opposition have prevented us from
debating.
I share the view of the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and my hon. Friends that we are going
through a ritual. There is the indignation of the Opposition and the self-justification of the Government. I
should like to quote from a speech by Robert Mellish, the former right hon. Member for Bermondsey
— a source I would not normally quote. During the debate on the timetable motion on the
Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, he said:
Oppositions must be allowed to oppose, but Oppositions must be denied the complete
freedom to do exactly what they want by filibustering, for example, in their attempts to stop Bills.
Governments must have the right to govern and Oppositions must have the right to oppose. That is
what democracy is all about. But when Oppositions have had their fun and games, the Government
must be free to move in."—[Official Report, 20 July 1976; Vol. 915, c.
1554.]
I wholeheartedly endorse what Mr. Mellish said then, which was that each Bill should have a timetable
motion at the start. I hope that the procedures of the House will soon be
changed.

Mr. Allan Roberts: I am
horrified not just by the fact that the Government are guillotining the Bill but


by the manner in which they are doing it. They could have brought in a guillotine—I would still
have opposed it—that allowed more time for debate than 40 minutes a clause. Each clause that
remains to be debated covers a major service. We shall have 40 minutes in which to debate the police.
On Merseyside, the rate capping legislation will deprive the police service of £14·4
million. Proposals in the Bill do not help. There will be a police authority controlled by magistrates and
nominees of the districts. There will be no directly elected representatives to account for the police
service.
We were just beginning to convince Conservative Members in Committee that the Bill gives more power
not to the districts, but to quangos, joint boards and ministerial reserve powers. However, the present
debate proves that we have not yet convinced them. They keep repeating the myths. We need more time
in which to convince them.
The arts have still to be debated. We need answers on each metropolitan county council area, and on
GLC matters. What will happen to specific areas of the arts? On Merseyside, what will happen to
Croxted hall, Speke hall and the Philharmonic hall? The people of the area want to know.
The voluntary bodies are still bombarding us with questions that the Minister has not answered about
the future of the voluntary sector. Government Members do nothing but reiterate their prejudices against
blacks and women. They attack the voluntary sector to which authorities such as Merseyside county
council and the GLC have given grants.
The whole question of costs has yet to be fully discussed. There is a clause on redundancy payments.
The Government say that the Bill will save money. However, there is a clause on compensation for loss
of office and diminution of emoluments. It appears that the Government mean to pension everyone off
and that the pensions will cost more than it costs to run the Merseyside county council.
There are the financial arrangements for the future, the block grant situation and the fact that the joint
bodies and quangos will be rate capped before their lives begin. We also have to debate transport and
such questions as the future of the bus pass on Merseyside. The Government appear to want to return
to the voucher system operated in Tory Sefton before the Labour council gave a bus pass to the elderly
of Merseyside.
We have not yet debated the clause on airports. We have to debate the future of Manchester and Speke
airports. I suggest that if Merseyside county council is abolished, Speke airport will be closed. How will
that affect jobs on Merseyside?
We need time for the Government to make their own case. So far, they have failed to do so. We have
continually pressed the Government for clear evidence about costs and have asked them what expert
support exists for their proposals, but no such evidence has been forthcoming. We have also asked
about the financial saving in each service area. Instead of producing evidence of such saving, the
Government have admitted that there will be no savings among the services that we have so far debated.
In at least three areas — waste disposal, probation services and archives — Ministers
have admitted that there will be no savings. In two others—

the coroners service and the trading standards service—they have actually acknowledged that
costs will rise. We therefore need time to debate these matters.
The Government have made no case for their proposals. We have debated each clause fully because so
far each has covered a major service area. The same can be said of the remaining 56 hours. We shall
need that time to debate the remaining clauses and schedules, to put our case for each service area and
to get some answers from the Government.

Dr. John Cunningham: I hope
that hon. Members on both sides of the House will forgive me if I do not reply to their speeches in
detail in the 10 minutes available to me. However, I wish to make two general observations.
First, the first few Conservative Members who spoke seemed more concerned with the contents of the
Strangers Gallery than with the contents of the Bill. We then had a series of repetitious speeches
complaining about repetition in Committee, but, as the Leader of the House made clear, there has been
no repetition in Committee and no attempts to filibuster.
If ever a Bill needed proper Committee scrutiny, this one certainly does. It was never based on any
proper inquiry into the proposals. The proposals have not been subjected to any thorough public
examination, and they will now not receive thorough parliamentary scrutiny.
Far from being involved in repetition, the Committee has expeditiously discussed a number of important
matters, such as technical services, strategic planning, conservation, highways, traffic management,
economic development, waste disposal, trading standards, judicial services, support for the arts,
promotion of equal opportunities and support for black and ethnic minority communities.
During our deliberations the Committee has clearly demonstrated that the Government have no identified
support for their proposals outside the Conservative party. They have been unable to identify any
service area in which financial and manpower savings will result from abolition; nor have they identified
an area which will be more effectively managed as a result of the Bill. That is the reality of what the
Committee has been doing, and the Opposition demand the right and the opportunity to continue to
discuss these issues.
I agree with a number of hon. Members who have said that as presently organised the House of
Commons cannot possibly deal with Bills such as this. This is a mammoth piece of legislation
containing 98 clauses and 17 schedules. It was obvious from the beginning that it would be the subject
of a timetable motion. Indeed, I have no doubt in my own mind that in planning its introduction and
passage through the House the Government intended to have a guillotine at this stage of its
parliamentary consideration.
That decision means that a number of major policy issues in the seven authorities
concerned—education, the police and fire services, transport, airports, museums, art galleries,
the South Bank, and so on — will be desperately short of time for proper consideration. For
example, part IV sets up 19 new joint boards. Clause 40 enables the Secretary of State, without inquiry,
to break up police, fire or transport authorities. Clauses 41 to 45 transfer the London and metropolitan
museums and the


South Bank to Government appointees. One can go on listing major policies in the Bill which will not be
given anything like adequate consideration.
It seems from the timetable that the Committee will have between 50 and 60 hours to deal with the
remaining 82 clauses and nine schedules dealing with the policies which I have set out. No Committee
can, in that time, deal properly and adequately with the issues involved, and I defy any Conservative
Members, particularly those serving on the Committee who have sat throughout its proceedings without
uttering a word, to say that in the remaining time the Committee will have the opportunity to scrutinise
the Bill as it needs and deserves to be examined.
We are here predictably. I share the view, expressed in particular by Conservative Members, that the
House of Commons should reform the way in which it examines legislation, particularly legislation such
as this. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), among others, asked about the views
of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). My hon. Friend and I share identical views
on this subject, and they are that the present procedures are demonstrably inadequate, but so are the
arrangements whereby only the Government have any real say about the timetable of legislation. We
feel—and the House should address itself to this—that we should reform our
procedures so that Bills can be timetabled, but not on the basis of a decision made by the Executive,
whichever party is forming the Executive.
The Opposition are said to have the power to delay and have been using it in this instance, as on
previous examinations of Government legislation. That is not true. It is clearly the case that the
Government can override, as they are doing with this timetable motion, even the limited power of
Opposition parties simply to delay progress on a Bill. It is also increasingly seen outside the House, by
members of the authorities concerned, by the officers serving those authorities and by the general public
that our procedures are not just inadequate but frankly barmy. I do not think that those who observe our
proceedings in Committee think it sensible, leads to good legislation or good government, for close on
50 hon. Members to be sitting up all day and night two days a week considering legislation.
I guess that it is no accident that the Secretary of State decided to opt out of this procedure, and in
some senses I do not blame him. It cannot be sensible for a Cabinet Minister to be kept out of bed day
and night for two days and nights a week and thus not be able to attend effectively to the affairs of
state. The right hon. Gentleman does a pretty bad job of it when he gets to bed, so if he were kept up
two nights a week, goodness knows what difficulties he would be getting into.
The reality is that reform of the House of Commons would be far more in the interests of the taxpayers
than will the Government's proposed reforms of local councils. Taxpayers — and, indeed,
ratepayers — would get far more benefit, a far better deal and far better legislation from the
reform of Parliament, and the way that this kind of legislation is dealt with, than they will from any plans
to abolish the metropolitan counties or the Greater London council. It is clear that those authorities so
order and conduct their business that they are able to operate in a far more sane, sensible and logical
way than we are able to here. That is the reality. In consequence, they give their ratepayers a better
deal.
There is no case for the guillotine—at least in its present form—nor was there ever any
case for the Bill. In the absence of the reforms that I have mentioned, I have no hesitation in urging
everyone to oppose the motion.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Kenneth Baker): One of the words that have been used a great deal this
evening has been the word "ritual". The noises made against the measure by the Opposition have been
ritualistic. They have expressed shock and horror at our attempting to curtail the debate, because they
have said that they wanted to improve the Bill. They have never had that intention. Their whole purpose
has been to delay and destroy the Bill and to overturn the convincing vote on Second Reading, when
the House accepted the principle of the Bill and the Government had a majority of 135.
The word "ritual" has been used to describe the way that we conduct ourselves in examining legislation
in Standing Committee. I have been involved in three guillotined measures in the past three years.
[Interruption.] I am not as expert as some, as I shall show later. They have all been very
controversial Bills—the first two Telecommunications Bills and this Bill.
As one of the prime players, it seems to me that this is how a ritual develops. First, the Government
publish the Bill, and then some Opposition spokesman says that they will fight it line by line and clause
by clause. That pleases their supporters in the country. But it immediately impales the Opposition on a
hook, because it is not then possible for them to come to any sort of reasonable arrangement about the
length of debate. They feel—I understand it—that they would be letting down their
supporters in the country if they made such a deal.
The failure of such an arrangement means that the Government are also impaled on a hook, because
they then have to make a reasonable amount of time available for the measure to be
debated—and so it goes on. The House knows the result — very late sittings. A tradition
has been established that a timetable motion cannot be moved until a Committee has sat for 100 hours.
This time the figure is about 105 hours. It is a sort of new parliamentary virility symbol.
I listened carefully to the words of the Leader of the House this afternoon. He said that he was not
persuaded of a need to change the procedures of the House and that he would prefer voluntary
arrangements to prevail. I agree that for the great bulk of parliamentary business we would all welcome
the idea that reasonable arrangements should prevail, but in regard to very controversial Bills it is
expecting too much to think that that will occur. If the Leader of the House is not willing to consider a
more fundamental change, perhaps he could lower the level of the virility symbol that is required before
guillotine motions are moved from 100 hours to, say, 50 hours. I believe that that was the figure once
agreed upon by a former Leader of the House, Mr. Chuter Ede.
I readily agree that the Bill has not been delayed as a result of filibustering upstairs. Indeed, the hon.
Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Cowans) has hardly ever got into second gear. But that did not prevent
him from accusing the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State of filibustering when he introduced an
amendment in 12 seconds flat. Upstairs in Committee we have seen a sort of filibuster by amendment.
About 600 amendments have been tabled. I would not mind that if those amendments were designed


to improve the Bill in any detail, but instead they have all provided opportunities for Second Reading
speeches to be made on the same principle.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Baker: I am sorry, but I cannot give way.
In Committee there has really only been one debate and that has been on the question of whether the
boroughs and districts can fulfil the duties, or whether we need county-wide authorities. The
amendments have been directed to that. If we had not introduced this guillotine motion, the debate
would have been very prolonged. One night, when I had little else to do, I calculated how much longer
our debates would have taken—incidentally, I was gambling that we might just pass this
motion—if the Committee took as long on the next lot of clauses and schedules as it had taken
on the first grouping. I discovered that we would have come out of the Committee on I August. I see
that the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch
(Mr. Sedgemore) think that that is a good idea.
If it took us as long to debate the rest of the Bill as it took us to debate clause 2—a three-line
clause that took us an hour a line to debate—we would not have come out of Committee until
1993.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Baker: I have even better news for the
Opposition. If it took as long to debate the rest of the Bill as it took us to debate clause 8 —
when it took us 10 hours to debate only six lines—the Bill would not have emerged from
Committee until the end of the century.
The guillotine motion contains one of the most generous allocations of time for more than 15 years. So
far, we have had 118 hours in Committee and, if one includes the time spent on Second Reading, we
have spent 133½ hours debating the Bill. After the guillotine motion is passed, another 72
hours will be provided. There will be 14 hours on Report and Third Reading. Thus, in all, 220 hours
will have been provided. No Bill has had such a long debate since the Housing Finance Bill in
1971.
That debate will allow the House and the Committee to examine in considerable detail the various
matters that we have not yet touched upon. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood
(Mr. Howarth) and the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said that we had not yet debated
ILEA, the police authorities, the fire authorities, the passenger transport authorities, our policy on
airports or the future of the South Bank. But our failure to reach those parts of the Bill is due entirely to
the tactics developed and used by the Opposition.
As I have made clear to the Opposition Front Bench, we have been willing to make progress. But
instead there have been prolonged debates—all on the basic principle of the Bill. There has been
a series of Second Reading speeches. That cannot be the right or appropriate way to deal with
legislation.

Mr. Nellist: rose—

Mr. Baker: I hope that the Bill will be debated
exhaustively. I am sure that Opposition Members will be able to debate it now in a more measured way
and will not have to sit up until 1 am, 3 am or 5 am. The only people to gain from a delay are the
authorities. They are seeking

to subvert Parliament's intention as clearly expressed on Second Reading, because if they can delay the
Bill, the whole process of legislation and of devolution will come to an end. That is why we must speed
the Bill on its way to the House of Lords. We want it on the statute book in the summer so that the
process of abolition can continue in the following nine months.
The other word that has been used tonight is democracy. It has been said that the Bill is not democratic.
I remember a former Labour Leader of the House standing at this Dispatch Box and moving five
guillotine motions in one day. The tumbrils were queuing up at the scaffold as the Bills were wheeled on
and guillotined. I am not prepared to take lectures on democracy from a Labour party that will not even
have one man one vote for the selection of its Members of Parliament. Therefore, I hope that my right
hon. and hon. Friends will support the motion.

Question put: —

The House divided: Ayes, 276 Noes, 195.

Division No. 97]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Chapman, Sydney


Aitken, Jonathan
Chope, Christopher


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, W. S.


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Ancram, Michael
Clegg, Sir Walter


Arnold, Tom
Cockeram, Eric


Ashby, David
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Conway, Derek


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Cope, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Couchman, James


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Cranborne, Viscount


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Critchley, Julian


Baldry, Tony
Crouch, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Batiste, Spencer
Dickens, Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Den


Benyon, William
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Best, Keith
Dunn, Robert


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Durant, Tony


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Blackburn, John
Eggar, Tim


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Emery, Sir Peter


Body, Richard
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bottomley, Peter
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Farr, Sir John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Favell, Anthony


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Forman, Nigel


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bright, Graham
Freeman, Roger


Brinton, Tim
Galley, Roy


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brooke, Hon Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bruinvels, Peter
Gow, Ian


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gower, Sir Raymond


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Grant, Sir Anthony


Buck, Sir Antony
Greenway, Harry


Bulmer, Esmond
Gregory, Conal


Burt, Alistair
Grist, Ian


Butcher, John
Grylls, Michael


Butler, Hon Adam
Gummer, John Selwyn


Butterfill, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Harvey, Robert


Cash, William
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)






Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayes, J.
Pollock, Alexander


Hayhoe, Barney
Porter, Barry


Hayward, Robert
Portillo, Michael


Heddle, John
Powell, William (Corby)


Henderson, Barry
Powley, John


Hickmet, Richard
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Price, Sir David


Hill, James
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hind, Kenneth
Raffan, Keith


Hordern, Peter
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Renton, Tim


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Rhodes James, Robert


Hunter, Andrew
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jackson, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jessel, Toby
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rost, Peter


Lang, Ian
Rowe, Andrew


Lawrence, Ivan
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ryder, Richard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Scott, Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lilley, Peter
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lord, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Lyell, Nicholas
Skeet, T. H. H.


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Speller, Tony


Maclean, David John
Spence, John


McQuarrie, Albert
Spencer, Derek


Major, John
Squire, Robin


Malins, Humfrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Malone, Gerald
Stanley, John


Maples, John
Steen, Anthony


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Mates, Michael
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Mather, Carol
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Stokes, John


Mellor, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Merchant, Piers
Sumberg, David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miscampbell, Norman
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Moore, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Thurnham, Peter


Mudd, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Neale, Gerrard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Needham, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Trippier, David


Neubert, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Tony
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Norris, Steven
Viggers, Peter


Onslow, Cranley
Waddington, David


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ottaway, Richard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Walden, George


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Parris, Matthew
Wall, Sir Patrick


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Waller, Gary


Patten, John (Oxford)
Ward, John


Pawsey, James
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)





Warren, Kenneth
Woodcock, Michael


Watson, John
Yeo, Tim


Watts, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Whitfield, John



Whitney, Raymond
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Tim Sainsbury.


Wood, Timothy





NOES


Abse, Leo
Foster, Derek


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Foulkes, George


Anderson, Donald
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Ashton, Joe
Freud, Clement


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Garrett, W. E.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
George, Bruce


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnett, Guy
Godman, Dr Norman


Barron, Kevin
Golding, John


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Gould, Bryan


Beith, A. J.
Gourlay, Harry


Benn, Tony
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hardy, Peter


Bidwell, Sydney
Harman, Ms Harriet


Blair, Anthony
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Boyes, Roland
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Buchan, Norman
Home Robertson, John


Caborn, Richard
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Howells, Geraint


Campbell, Ian
Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cartwright, John
Janner, Hon Greville


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
John, Brynmor


Clarke, Thomas
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clay, Robert
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kennedy, Charles


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Cohen, Harry
Kirkwood, Archy


Coleman, Donald
Lambie, David


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lamond, James


Conlan, Bernard
Leighton, Ronald


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Cowans, Harry
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Craigen, J. M.
McCartney, Hugh


Crowther, Stan
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McGuire, Michael


Cunningham, Dr John
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
McKelvey, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Deakins, Eric
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
McTaggart, Robert


Dixon, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dormand, Jack
Madden, Max


Douglas, Dick
Marek, Dr John


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maxton, John


Eadie, Alex
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Meadowcroft, Michael


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Michie, William


Ellis, Raymond
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Ewing, Harry
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fatchett, Derek
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Nellist, David


Fisher, Mark
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flannery, Martin
O'Brien, William






O'Neill, Martin
Skinner, Dennis


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Park, George
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)


Parry, Robert
Snape, Peter


Patchett, Terry
Soley, Clive


Pavitt, Laurie
Spearing, Nigel


Pendry, Tom
Steel, Rt Hon David


Penhaligon, David
Stott, Roger


Pike, Peter
Strang, Gavin


Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)
Straw, Jack


Prescott, John
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Radice, Giles
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Redmond, M.
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Tinn, James


Richardson, Ms Jo
Torney, Tom


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wainwright, R.


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert


Rooker, J. W.
Welsh, Michael


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
White, James


Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Rowlands, Ted
Winnick, David


Ryman, John
Woodall, Alec


Sedgemore, Brian
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Sheerman, Barry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.



Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Short, Mrs R (W'hampt'n NE)
Mr. Sean Hughes.


Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the
Bill:—

Committee

1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill (except Clause 1) is allocated shall report the Bill
(except Clause 1) to the House on or before 7th March 1985.

Report and Third Reading

2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be
completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of
those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 45 (Business Committee) this Order shall be
taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the
Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on
Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings
on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the
Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 45 may be varied by a further
Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or
not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which
proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to
be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not
adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings
have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee
except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement
from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the
Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new
Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee
may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the
Bill (or such of its provisions as were committed or re-committed to that Committee) to the House
without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in
the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question
on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Extra time on first allotted day

7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted
business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.

(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock
under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that
should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.

(3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under
Standing Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the
proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

Private business

8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted
day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion
of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted
business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the
proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to
the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be
brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or
the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the
Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the
case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause
or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of
any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put
only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order
relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing
Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration)
would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which,
under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or
before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a
Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be
postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing
Order No. 10 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the
Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution


of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a
period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

10. —(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the
Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might
have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not
previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and
paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a
time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the
sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting
by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee
shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or
completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day
after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Re-committal

12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on
Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in
consequence of re-committal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as
a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the
Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first
Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to
be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that
day;
the Bill" means the Local Government Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business
Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as
agreed to by the House.

Health and Safety

Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Control of Industrial
Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 1902), dated 4th December 1984, a copy of
which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.
This important regulation deals with major issues in many parts of the country. However, before I
comment on it, I wish to say at the outset that we received two statutory instruments from the Vote
Office — one printed in December and the other printed in January. Some corrections have
been made to the statutory instrument, one of which extends the period during which organisations must
co-operate with the regulation. The Department has been especially sloppy in that respect. This should
not have been allowed to happen and I want to hear from the Minister why it did. Was there pressure
from the industry to extend the period after which the regulations will become applicable? One of our
major criticisms of the regulations is that they do not go far enough in meeting our
anxieties.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to
intervene at such an early stage. The copy of the regulations that was signed and laid before Parliament
contained no errors. However, there was a misprint in the explanatory memorandum and the
memorandum has been reprinted for the convenience of the House. It contains the same date as the
consultative document which, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman will have read. No doubt he will forgive us
for any attempt to move the final date of implementation backwards.

Mr. Prescott: Yes. I notice that an extra six months is
allowed before it is necessary to comply with the regulations. The change to which the Minister has
referred means that there will be four and a half years before it is necessary to comply with the
regulations, instead of four years. That will not go down very well in many areas where there is extreme
concern about the concentration of hazardous materials. Many incidents are still fresh in our minds. The
terrible Bhopal tragedy is especially clear in our minds. As I come from Humberside, I recall the night
of the explosion at Flixborough. Most of those living on the north or the south bank of the Humber
heard that terrible and tragic explosion. Much of the plant was blown across the river on to the north
bank. The Flixborough disaster led to the establishment of committees to consider the regulations that
were required for explosive chemicals.
Since the Flixborough disaster of 1974, there have been fires and explosions at Barking, Stalybridge,
Manchester and Sheffield. There is the controversy in Livingston about whether Union Carbide should
be allowed to develop a plant in that area. I am sure that every hon. Member will be increasingly
concerned, as will their constituents, about the growing problems arising from the concentration of
hazardous materials and substances.
The regulations before us stem from the terrible accident and tragedy at Seveso in Italy, which led the
Community to develop regulations. The delay in the

implementation of the regulations arising from the Seveso incident has caused delay in action being
taken in Britain. More than three reports have come from the advisory committee since the Flixborough
explosion in 1974.
I am sure that the House will welcome any regulations that seek to improve safety and to reduce the
repetition of the tragic incidents to which I have referred. Any extra-statutory controls that are envisaged
in the regulations requiring notification, safety plans, on and off-site emergency plans and the provision
of information for local authorities, however limited, are to be welcomed. However, these improvements
represent a step forward and two steps backwards. The Opposition's criticisms of the regulations are
considerable. We are in considerable doubt whether they should be given full support. I am eager to
hear what the Minister has to say in their defence.
First, the regulations are limited in application. They do not apply to all the areas of concern where
incidents are likely to occur. Secondly, the requirement on manufacturers to provide information does
not go far enough. Thirdly, the resources required for the implementation of the regulations will not be
met adequately.
After the Flixborough incident, a study was undertaken of the advisory bodies to ascertain how many
plants should be covered by the controls as envisaged. The first report, which appeared in the
mid-1970s, showed that 5,000 such places should be subject to some form of control. It was an
identification of all the areas of concern. In 1982, the regulations which were introduced identified 1,600
plants and areas of concern. The regulations before us identify only 250 such plants, which is only 5 per
cent. of the 5,000 which were identified in 1976. That is a tremendous climb-down from the areas which
were first identified following the concern about the Flixborough incident which itself would not have
been covered by these regulations.
Under the regulations, the Health and Safety Executive has identified large inventory plants and it
believes that 250 should be required to co-operate with the regulations by providing safety plans and
taking other action. The Health and Safety Executive designates small inventory areas — those
plants and areas where the chemical concentrations are less than the minimum criteria laid down in the
legislation. There are more than 1,000 of them.
I understand that there is some controversy in one regard. The EEC Commission believes that these
regulations should apply to all large and small plants. The Opposition agree, because most of the
explosions have occurred in small plant areas. Those areas will not be covered by these regulations if
the large inventory areas interpretation is taken into account. Do the Government intend to make it clear
to the Health and Safety Executive that these requirements should apply to the 1,250 areas as a whole
and not just to the 250 plants of particular concern?
We criticise also the measures relating to accountability and information. The regulations require safety
plans to be provided by 1989, but that is a long way off. This is not satisfactory. Our criticisms relate
also to other aspects of the regulations. First, the requirements to provide information to the different
authorities — county and district — differ. I believe that that will lead to confusion. The
authorities have complained about that aspect. Secondly, there is no requirement to report to the safety
committee at the plant—to the shop stewards and


the workers — about dangerous chemicals and areas. Thirdly, the on-site manufacturer can
prepare a plan, but, under these regulations, he is required only to consult the person whom he thinks is
appropriate. The regulations do not specifically make it clear that, if the manufacturer cannot agree with
the local authority about the actions he wishes to take in his plant, he cannot just go to someone whom
he thinks is appropriate and fulfil his obligations under the regulations. That is not satisfactory.
Fourthly, the information to be given to the public is not required to be given directly to the public, and
that is unsatisfactory. The information may be given to the local authority and will be given to the Health
and Safety Executive but the executive is not under an obligation, according to the legislation, to give
confidential information to the public. Complaints have been made that these regulations do not enable
such essential information to be made available to anyone who inquires.
In the February 1985 edition of Health and Safety at Work Alex Crawford states in the editorial:
those liable to be affected by a major accident have no right, under these new regulations, to
challenge the manufacturer's description of the nature of the hazard to which he is exposing them, the
safety measures he proposes, nor the behaviour he lays down for them to adopt in the event of a major
accident.
The same editorial contains a complaint by a consultant who said that the secrecy surrounding this
information should not be allowed.
Members of Parliament are asking for information on the plants in their areas that will be identified under
the regulations as containing hazardous materials. I have acquired a Health and Safety Executive
document which makes it clear that, under the old 1982 regulations, 42 plants were designated in my
area of Humberside—one of the most dangerous areas for chemical plants in the United
Kingdom — as places to be identified to the authorities as possible dangerous locations. Under
the new regulations only 12 of those 42 plants have to be identified. That is the scale of the reduction in
the requirements. Are Members of Parliament and the public entitled to know whether the areas in which
they live are designated as dangerous?
The Health and Safety Executive cannot make that information available, therefore the Government
should change the health and safety legislation so that people may obtain it, and allow Members of
Parliament to have access to it. In the Humberside region 12 plants can be identified as needing
consideration. One of them is the Ciba-Geigy chemical plant in Grimsby, which is the only plant using
the same chemicals as those at Bhopal. The House can imagine how worried are the people living in that
area, especially as the Health and Safety Executive has removed the only health and safety inspector
form that plant.
My final criticism of the regulations relates to the resources available for their implementation. The
Health and Safety Executive, which provides the factory inspectors, will have its work load increased
fivefold by the requirements of the legislation. In 1979,964 inspectors were employed by the Health and
Safety Executive. The Labour Government's plans provided for that number to increase to 1,150. By
1984, the number had fallen to 824 —a 16 per cent. fall. The greatest drop has been in the
number of field inspectors. There has been a 19 per cent., fall from 644 inspectors to 537. They are the
people who should check what manufacturers are saying and whether

there is a threat to surrounding communities. Their number has been reduced because of the
Government's cut in resources to the Health and Safety Executive.
When the Government have to decide between tax cuts or factory inspectors, they should opt for the
latter so as to assure people living around the plants.
There is considerable criticism of the resources available and the accountability provided under the
regulations. We hope that the Minister will say whether he is satisfied with the regulations, whether he
intends to introduce further changes under the planning regulations and whether the Government can
improve the position and reduce the growing anxiety felt in areas such as Barking, Sheffield and
Livingston. The public will begin to demand action. I predict that explosions and other incidents will
occur in plants that are not covered by the regulations. For the House to vote on regulations that may
improve the position in 250 plants but ignore a further 1,000 plants and warehouses is to ignore the
types of places where explosions and fires have taken place.
The measure is perhaps motivated by the best of intentions within the EEC, but its implementation is
conditioned by a lack of adequate resources. It omits hazardous areas from the full effects of the
controls and leaves the Opposition in serious doubt as to whether to support the regulations. We shall
listen carefully to what assurances the Minister can give us.

Mr. David Crouch: I
listened to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) with great interest. He spoke
forcefully. He was somewhat critical of the regulations introduced by the Government on this important
subject. I sense that he was critical of the fact that we were dealing with the issue late at night. Many
hon. Members are worried that we are dealing with the subject of major hazards and possible major
disasters late at night. We have recently seen the horrific disaster at Bhopal. It should never have
happened. The process was well known. We are considering something which has been delivered to us
by the Commission in Brussels.
This country has always been interested in preventing major industrial disasters and hazards, whether in
the factory, through explosion, fire, or the dispersal of toxic and dangerous substances from a factory
to affect the surrounding community.
I should declare an interest. I have a long-standing interest as a director of a chemical company and I
am an adviser to the principal distributor in this country of liquefied petroleum gas, which is a
hazardous product. I am also chairman of the all-party group on the chemical industry which has,
appropriately, shown an all-party interest in the problems of an industry which deals in danger and
hazards.
Our industry has a remarkably fine record. The Flixborough disaster happened at a weekend and the
BBC rang me at home before contacting any Government spokesmen. I suppose that I was asked for
an immediate comment because of my long interest in the industry.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said that the regulations were not
demanding enough. That is a matter for debate, but they set out a great deal with which manufacturers
must comply. I am pleased that a comprehensive guide to the regulations has been


issued by the Government and the Health and Safety Executive to help manufacturers to comply with
the regulations.
The guide takes us through the regulations. That is helpful, because regulations are often written for
Parliament and sometimes have to be interpreted subsequently by lawyers. The guide will help
employers and employees in the industry to understand the regulations.
Regulation 7 sets out the safety case and requires manufacturers to ensure that the production, handling
and storage of hazardous products ore safe. Manufacturers also have to identify any potential danger
and confirm that they have provided appropriate safety controls at all stages, not only for those working
in a plant, but for those in the immediate vicinity who could be put in danger if anything went
wrong.
Regulation 8 is equally important, because it requires the Government and the HSE to ensure that safety
measures are kept up to date. They also have to ensure that manufacturers are kept informed of the
latest developments and information on products and manufacturing processes.
Regulation 9 gives the HSE the Dickensian opportunity of being able to ask for more if necessary. That
is belt and braces, but, heaven knows, we should be asking for belt and braces when considering any
major hazards in industry, whether inside or outside the factory. It is right that the regulations should be
tough in that regard.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is the hon. Gentleman confident
that the regulations will dispel the real anxieties felt by communities within which such plants are
situated? The people of Livingston, despite the high unemployment in the area, have rejected
overwhelmingly Union Carbide's plans to set up a plant there. They have made their objections felt by
way of the Livingston development corporation, which, in turn, has said that those developments will go
no further.

Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
his intervention. I shall develop a matter that he touched on — whether people outside the
professional area of knowledge have a right to say that they are concerned. I believe that they have a
right. That is why Parliament has that right this evening. That is why there is a continuing obligation on
the Government and the Health and Safety Executive to continue that right of investigation and query.
Through local authorities and Members of Parliament in the Chamber itself, the public must constantly
inquire as to the wisdom of allowing an operation to continue in any place. We must be sure; we cannot
take risks. I should like to refer to how I believe risks have sometimes been created by mistake on the
part of not only manufacturers but local authorities.
Therefore, I can say, "So far, so good" about the three regulations that I have described. I accept them.
We can be satisfied that we have satisfied Brussels, but that is not enough. Regulations, rules and codes
of practice are fine in writing; fine for the lawyers, insurance agents and assessors after the event. They
know where they stand. They are fine for the local authorities that will know whether they have made a
mistake in controlling something. They are fine even for the manufacturers who

will know whether they have abided by the regulations when there is a disaster or an accident. But are
they good enough for us in Parliament? Are they good enough for the public outside? Are they good
enough for the press as they watch for what might happen after any major accident and consider
whether we could have been wiser?
I say to the Minister and the whole House that it is not so much what is written in these detailed
regulations that matters, but it is how the regulations are operated and implemented that counts. We
know in the chemical industry that all the fine rules about safety are only as good as the way in which
they are operated—accurately and absolutely correctly. We know that danger exists in industry
sometimes through human error, human laxity or carelessness. We must ensure that we do not allow
laxity or carelessness to occur.
There is mention in the regulations of local authorities at both county and district level. They all have a
responsibility to ensure that the manufacturing and storage operations that take place within their areas
are satisfactory to them. Responsibility is laid on them. One responsibility is to ensure that in their
planning they do not allow the wrong type of development to occur around the manufacture of certain
products. That has happened in the past. There was housing development close to the border of
Flixborough. That was obviously a mistake. We have had such problems. In Bhopal, for example, we
saw how a great number of people were allowed to live right up to the factory perimeter, which was a
tragic mistake in planning. Therefore, the local authority, as well as the manufacturer, has responsibility
for observing the codes and regulations.
In a quite different area of activity, local authorities have allowed housing development up to the
perimeter of major airports such as Heathrow. That must not continue. The danger is not so much the
real risk of aircraft crashing as the noise and pollution caused by so much aircraft activity. There is also
the cost of double glazing to diminish the effect of what is really an industrial activity. The local
authority has a responsibility not to permit domestic housing development right up to the perimeter of
industrial operations where there is any question of a hazard of the type described in the
regulations.
I promised to be brief and this is my last word. I believe that these are good regulations. They satisfy
Brussels, but for the House to be satisfied we must be sure that the Department and the Health and
Safety Executive will be constantly vigilant to ensure that they are operated at the highest level of
efficiency.

Mr. Ted Garrett: Like the
hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), I must declare an interest as an official of the all-party
group on the chemical industry. I also spent 20 years with ICI at the sharp end of industrial production
in the chemical industry, so I know of the risks involved, whether the substance be toxic or non-toxic,
inflammable or non-inflammable, explosive or non-explosive.
The regulations go as far as one can expect in the circumstances. The existing regulations have been
built up over the years, and I assure the House that they are applied with as strict a discipline as they
would be in the Armed Forces. That discipline is instilled into every employee of ICI and other large
companies. If a person fails to accept that discipline, he will not last in the chemical industry.


He will do no good for himself or for the employer. With the current scale of industrial production in
this country and chemical manufacture in Europe, it is essential to keep a sense of balance and to,
remember the human factor. We shall never entirely eliminate the risk of explosion or poisoning by
chemical waste.
What disturbs me about the present regulations and also the proposed regulations is the somewhat
blasé approach to cost. It costs the chemical industry a great deal of money to train people to
the present high standards. That training continues relentlessly virtually every day of the year and it
applies to all ranks, from the humble process worker to senior management. As I have said, anyone
who does not accept that strict principle should not be in the chemical industry. Nevertheless, there is
the possibility that the proposed regulations will be implemented without the necessary skills of
inspection to ensure that they are effective and are carried out to the required standards. A financial
commitment is to be imposed on an industry some sections of which are not making vast profits, on the
Health and Safety Executive and on the local authorities.
How can we expect the local authorities to monitor the implementation of the regulations when the
number of people employed in local authorities is being cut? I am thinking in particular of the fire
services. The fire services are stretched to the limit now, and there are moves to cut them further. Yet it
is the fire service in the main that will have to take the first emergency action if there is an incident. I
know that the fire service is trained to the limit, in co-operation with the companies, to deal with any
emergency at a plant. The House should not underestimate the superb quality of the training process or
the skill of the fire officers in knowing how to react in an emergency.

Mr. Peter Hardy: That
point is of real importance and relevant to south Yorkshire, where there was recently a serious fire in
consequence of which many firemen are still unwell and large quantities of asbestos were blown over
my constituency and that of Rotherham.
If an industrial establishment is inadequately supervised and inspected in the first place, the hazards
facing the fire service will be even greater.

Mr. Garrett: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. I
pay tribute to the south Yorkshire fire services, which in the past have been to the fore in co-operating
with chemical plants in the area in joint training exercises.
I hope that the Minister will accept that, before the regulations are implemented, there must be adequate
education of all parties involved to ensure that they fully understand them.
The large companies that run chemical plants tend to spend a great deal of money on education, and to
get results. The same is true of medium-sized companies. However, I have some reservations about
companies lower down the scale, especially where the storage of hazardous substances is concerned. I
would not wish to stifle initiative or to frustrate the wish of any entrepreneur to establish a business in
chemical manufacture or distribution. I believe, however, that the small operator in this sector of the
industry should be given some financial encouragement to train his staff or to enable them to acquire the
necessary knowledge of how to act in an emergency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) is no longer in his place.

[Interruption] I am sorry. I see that my hon. Friend has merely shifted his position, as it were,
somewhat to the right. My hon. Friend expressed some concern about the shop stewards. The trade
unions in the larger companies of which I have knowledge, through the shop stewards, are fully
informed about, and fully participate in, all training matters and in the exercises and emergency drills that
take place almost every day.
The regulations are an improvement. When they are implemented, let us make sure that the three main
parties concerned are determined that they will work and that the training and education takes place. If
we do so, the British people will retain their confidence in the chemical
industry.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I wish to
make five brief points. First, these regulations have been commended to Parliament by the Health and
Safety Commission, which includes not only representatives of British industry through the CBI but
also the TUC and local authorities.
Secondly, these regulations are not, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)
seemed to imply, limited to only 250 sites. They relate to many more sites because they require the
manufacturers of certain dangerous, explosive, flammable or toxic substances to provide evidence at
any time that they have identified hazards, have taken adequate precautions to minimise their occurrence
and have plans to reduce the consequences of any accidents. Therefore, the activating factor is not the
site but the manufacture of certain dangerous substances. It is right that under the regulations certain
sites with large inventories of dangerous substances have higher duties placed upon them, but to
suggest that they relate to only 250 sites is to mislead the House.

Mr. Prescott: Of course not. This is a
hand-out.

Mr. Baldry: It is not a hand-out. The hon. Gentleman
and I both read the same magazines because we study this subject assiduously. If he turns to page 9 of
this month's Health and Safety at Work, magazine, he will see that I am exactly right.
Thirdly, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that no amount of
regulation, however strict, will ever surpass self-regulation. It is clear that at all times those involved in
the manufacture of chemicals have the highest possible self-regulation, both at company level and, as
the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) said, among individual workers.
Fourthly, one must find a balance. It is inevitable that if further regulations are imposed on industry, a
cost will have to be borne. There will be additional paperwork, and extra expenses will have to be met
for emergency planning. Resources will consequently be diverted from other more productive activity,
and at the end of the day the additional costs will be borne by the consumer. That is perfectly proper,
but a balance must be found between that and the danger which one seeks to minimise or control.
These regulations balance the sensible needs of good practice in industry in relation to on-site
emergency plans, close liaison with the local emergency authority and emergency services, the control
of major hazards and regular consultation with the local authority both on planning applications for new
products and generally.
Fifthly, it may be suggested that these regulations should be taken in isolation. That is not so. These


regulations and the Notification of Installations Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations, together
with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act itself, constitute a substantial code of law for the control of
major hazard installations. Recent amendments to planning law have also meant that development
projects involving a dangerous substance now require planning permission.
Further regulations — the Dangerous Substances (Notification and Marking of Premises)
Regulations—are now under consideration. Taken as a whole they will ensure that any factory
with more than 25 tonnes of a dangerous substance will have to notify that fact to the Health and Safety
Executive. They afford substantial protection, and it is misleading to suggest that the regulations we are
now discussing must be taken in isolation.
I notice that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is now back in his place. If he looks at page
9 of this month's edition of Health and Safety at Work, he will see that it confirms my point that
these regulations apply to considerably more than 250 sites.

Mr. Richard Caborn: The regulations have the wrong
title. They should be called "The Enormous Hazards Regulations" as there are no regulations for major
hazards. The vast majority of hazardous plants in urban areas will not be affected by them.
Considerable disquiet is being expressed by the emergency services at the small amount of legislation to
deal with these potentially dangerous hazards. The fire in Sheffield has already been mentioned, and this
is an example of what can be considered as a hazard to the community in and around Sheffield. On the
14 December last year, a fire broke out in the National Carriers depot in Brightside lane, where 70
tonnes of chemcials were stored. It took 26 appliances and over 400 firemen to put the fire out. Over
£10 million worth of damage was done. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) talked
about the cost of these regulations, but the cost of the damage done in that fire, which lasted for six
days, must also be taken into consideration.
I received a letter from the chief fire officer, and I shall quote it to show that the professional people are
extremely concerned about the problems that they face with the lack of regulations. He says:
The main causes for the amount of damage by the fire and the hazards to personnel
undertaking necessary fire fighting operations are readily identified as follows.

1. (a) A delay in detection of the fire and subsequent call to the Fire Service occurred which
allowed an uncontrolled fire to develop for at least 30 minutes.
(b) The fire separation between the various units within the building could not be assessed
and could be regarded as nothing better than providing physical division between occupancies with the
exception only of a single wall beyond which the fire was prevented from spreading.
(c) The undivided area between the roof lining and the structural roof which allowed ready
passage of flames throughout the roofed area which caused its early collapse."

His next point is extremely important. He said:
The building and the stored contents have not caused any existing legislation to be
transgressed which suggests that fires and the problems created by them are considered
reasonable.

He then set out a number of details that should be legislated on.
Similarly, the Sheffield council department of land and planning said:
This building complied with the requirements of the Building Regulations and many of the
elements of the structure stood up well to a fire of this severity. However, the rapid spread of flames
created a situation which could only be controlled with great difficulty. An additional complicating
factor was that chemicals were stored throughout the building in various areas.
There were about 70 tonnes of chemicals. These regulations would not have been effective in the case
of that fire. It continues:
In addition high risk chemicals should be stored in specially protected areas using materials
with a fire resistance of at least two hours. External signs should be provided stating the nature of the
chemicals stored in each area. These recommendations would allow for easier access to the source of
the fire, contain the spread of flame, and provide time for the Fire Service to tackle the
outbreak.
The effects of the fire have not yet been fully assessed, and we are still waiting for two further reports.
The immediate effect was the closure of 31 schools in the area, because of the spread of asbestos,
which was carried five miles downwind of the fire. The flakes of asbestos were in the main hand-sized,
but in many cases were three to four times that size.
Great problems were experienced by the firemen because of the difficulty of identifying the stored
materials. There was no inventory available to the fire service.
So far 100 firemen have been taken ill, and about 60 are still ill today. They have suffered from sore
throats, headaches, chest pains and breathing difficulties. Doctors have already told two of the firemen
that the mucus lining of their lungs has been stripped away.
Injuries have also been sustained by the public unit and planning staff. The principal building surveyor
suffered from blisters on his arms and face. The senior building supervisor complained of chest pains
and is now away from work with bronchial pneumonia. Those were the effects on the people involved
in the fire.
With regard to the effects on the community, I quote from an article in the Morning Telegraph
of 8 February:
The number of patients visiting the doctor's surgery with throat and chest complaints
increased by 50 per cent. after the £10 million warehouse fire at the nearby Brightside lane.
The doctor who has his surgery in Upwell Street, off Brightside lane, reported up to 30 people at each
of his surgeries compared to a normal maximum of 20. He said the visits lasted for a three-week period
after the fire and patients said that the complaints were caused by the December fire in which chemicals
stored at the warehouse were swept around the area in a massive smoke cloud. The effects of the fire
have caused widespread concern, with people reporting cases of sickness, headaches and
vomiting".
I do not know what is the definition of a major hazard. But in the light of case involving £10
million worth of damage, with 65 people still ill, and with 50 per cent. more people in the surrounding
community reporting sick than would normally be expected in the period, I wonder what a major hazard
is supposed to be. It is clear that the regulations now before the House would not have affected that
situation.
Often the storage of chemicals in urban areas cannot be avoided, but where they are stored in densely
populated areas, as in Sheffield, surely some precautions must be introduced. The regulations before
the House would not cover those circumstances. I have spoken to the chief fire officer and the planning
department in Sheffield about them. They have scrutinised the regulations and their


professional advice is that the regulations would not affect such a warehouse as the one that I have
mentioned. I hope that the Minister will clear up the matter, in view of what is being said by the chief fire
officer and the planning department. The regulations do not, according to them, cover such a building
as the National Carriers' warehouse in Sheffield, where the damage
occurred.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Would my
hon. Friend agree that what emerges from the regulations is a glaring anomaly in primary legislation?
Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, planning permission is not needed when a warehouse
that stores, for example, milk powder, is used for the storage of hazardous
chemicals.

Mr. Caborn: That is absolutely clear. It is confirmed
by the land and planning officer in Sheffield and by the chief fire officer and the other services.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, the regulations will
cover only about 250 establishments, and many places within areas of high density population where
dangerous chemicals are being stored will not be covered. On 6 February I asked the Secretary of State
for Employment whether he had any information
on the number of people downwind whose health was affected by asbestos or
chemicals—or in any other way as a result of the fire on 14 December at a warehouse in
Sheffield.
The Minister replied:
This Department does not hold this information." — [Official Report, 6
February 1985; Vol. 72, c. 586.]
Thus, the Department apparently has no information about the biggest fire to occur in south Yorkshire
for many years.
The Government have missed an opportunity to introduce legislation which could have allayed the
genuine fears about the storage not only of chemicals but of other dangerous substances. The fire
service can have difficulties in dealing with the cocktail of chemicals that are involved in a fire. That
problem is not easy to resolve, but it would have been nice, and it would have removed some of the
anxiety, if the Government had at least consulted those affected. If they had taken their advice, they
might have proposed a much more all-embracing piece of legislation than that before us. I hope that the
Opposition Front Bench will seriously consider voting against the regulations, because unless we do so,
we shall not do justice to our people.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Until 1983 I was a health and safety at
work officer and company secretary to BP Minerals, and I had to deal at first hand with the sort of
problems that have been outlined in this interesting debate. It is unusual for me to thank the European
Assembly for any directive, but these regulations appear to be helpful and accordingly I welcome
them.
My own interest is with liquefied petroleum gas. In 1984, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State
took part in a debate with me about the installation with regard to the Trocadero Shell service station in
my constituency. Since then there have been additional fears, with a calor gas explosion at Desford,
where several people lost their lives, and a leakage at Stoney Stanton. Therefore, the problem does not
seem to be going away, and that is a matter of great concern to me.
Regulation 5 provides an excellent way of reporting exactly what has happened. Regulation 5(2)
provides an

ideal way of reporting on a major accident, and no one can be critical of that. Obviously any industrial
installation will worry people. Consequently, the regulations, and particularly regulation 4, must be
helpful. We know that industrial installations always involve risks. Things can go wrong with them. The
wrong people may have been consulted prior to installation. But these regulations will encourage people
to consult fully beforehand.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said, the regulations will
apply to more than 250 sites. For example, it must always be ensured that the site location is safe. Is it
ideal, is it warranted, and is there a risk of a serious chemical leakage? Of course the storage of any
hazardous substances must be a matter of concern, and the question of whether it is a serious danger to
the surrounding community must be answered. Indeed, under these regulations it will be answered. The
plans will have to be carefully drawn up. We shall have to ensure that the operation is both viable and
safe. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that that is the purpose of the regulations.
Regulation 5 itemises what to do after an emergency, and that is very important and useful.
I pay tribute to the role of the Health and Safety Executive, which works hard to protect the community.
One hon. Member doubted whether the local authorities would be able to handle conducting the
executive if rate capping were introduced in parts of the country. That is an important matter.
Allegations that rate capping will affect the Health and Safety Executive and its co-operation with local
authorities is nonsense. We are talking about a priority and about hundreds of thousands of people in
local communities. Scare tactics are unacceptable.

Mr. Garrett: I am not sure whether the hon.
Gentleman is referring to my speech or that by my hon. Friend on the Front
Bench.

Mr. Bruinvels: I am referring to the speech by the
hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn).

Mr. Garrett: In that case, my hon. Friend can answer
for himself.

Mr. Bruinvels: I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was
not doing that. The idea in the local authorities' plan about how such emergencies should be handled is
helpful. I am reminded of the way in which the police operate at county level. The emergency rooms are
always prepared, with telephone numbers and routing, to deal with an emergency. Close co-operation
should be established with the police.

Dr. Godman: The people of Livingston have
demonstrated definitively that we are dealing with a more critical public following Flixborough and the
dreadful events there. The fears expressed in rejecting Union Carbide's plans to set up a plant are
genuine. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that such fears will be dispelled by the implementation of the
regulations.

Mr. Bruinvels: I am grateful for that intervention. If
the hon. Gentleman had been here during my Adjournment debate on petroleum gas, he would have
heard what I highlighted then. Serious anxiety existed at that time and the public need reassurance. The
Flixborough experience was another anxiety and these regulations will quell, to an extent, those natural
worries. I should not like to live beside the site decided for my constituency because of the


element of risk. That is of great concern to me. The guidelines will cut out that risk—at long last.
I hope that Opposition Members will join us in welcoming the regulations.
Local authorities must always be prepared. That is important. They must always consider the possibility
of a major accident. I pray that accidents will not continue to happen, but that risk is always on the
horizon.
Self-regulation is suggested as an alternative. All local authorities and local industrial concerns must do
their utmost to protect the community, not only employees. They must protect people who have no
choice but to live near an industrial site.
Canvey island is one of the most risky sites, but people choose to live there. They need protection and I
am certain that they will be protected. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act has been honoured under
the regulations—and will continue to be honoured. We need an active public education. The
police, local authorities and fire services performed well in the Leicestershire incident, as they do
throughout the country whenever a major explosion occurs. All the local services must co-operate. That
is the best way.
It is up to hon. Members to inform their constituents when they visit local installations that the
regulations will help. The guidance notes should be respected. They will make the installations and the
local communities safer places in which to live. For that reason I have no hesitation in supporting the
regulations.

Mr. David Penhaligon: All
accidents are frightening, and few more than those involving chemicals. We have only to glance through
the regulations to see chemicals listed which most of us cannot even pronounce, let alone understand
their uses or what may happen if they were subjected to heat or major pressure changes. I sometimes
feel that the House is at its least adequate when discussing such technical matters. It is obvious that few
of us know enough about the subject to make valid comments.
We are all floundering to find a solution to the problem, and we sometimes come near to mistaking
bureaucracy for safety. If there is an accident, we do not need acres and acres of paper—we
require someone with the relevant knowledge to be available within minutes. He will be the most valuable
person in a disaster. That is the weakness of the regulations.
On the whole, the regulations apply to the larger installations. We know that if there was an accident on
such a site in the United Kingdom the company involved could produce someone with the relevant
knowledge. It probably employs a number of suitably qualified people. However, on the smaller sites
where the amount stored is much less—perhaps a site in one of our villages or towns—I
fear that there is a real hazard. Indeed, that has been shown during the past three or four years. In such a
case not only will the paper not be produced, but the person with the knowledge will not be produced
either.

Mr. Crouch: The hon. Gentleman's point about flying
by the seat of one's pants is not really an answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr.
Caborn) about a real disaster. A detailed professional statement about quantities of chemicals could be
kept in certain areas.

Mr. Penhaligon: I accept that, and would welcome
any regulations on that line. Whether the figures quoted are correct is beyond my competence to say. I
saw the hon. Gentleman nod when I said that what we really need is someone with the relevant
knowledge. The greatest service that the Government could offer to encourage confidence in our
communities would be to ensure that within the Government there are a considerable number of
independent people who have the knowledge, and are seen to have the knowledge. It is true that the
Government cannot employ the number of chemists and experts employed by industry. However,
anything that reduces the number of inspectors or their qualifications — which must be high to
deal with some of the problems—would erode confidence, and confidence is as important as
any other factor.
Does the Minister really believe that the regulations cover the small storage sites, and are the
Government willing to invest enough in the Health and Safety Executive to produce sufficient people in
every area of the country to know what to do when an accident occurs? There is no substitute for that
skill when a disaster happens.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I recognise that it was impossible for all those who
wished to speak in this debate to do so, and I am sure that the hon. Members for Gower (Mr. Wardell),
for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) and for Barking (Ms. Richardson) would have contributed well
to the debate.
In the light of today's tragedy in Germany, when 18 members of the band of RAF Germany died in a
road accident caused by a spillage of aviation fuel, we must recognise that there are constant dangers
around, not only on site but on roads. The House will wish to join me in expressing heartfelt sympathy
to the families and colleagues of those who died.
As a matter of public interest, I should say that we take seriously the matter of safety on roads, taking
the advice of the Health and Safety Commission. For example, the transport of dangerous substances in
bulk by road is controlled by the Dangerous Substances (Conveyance by Road in Road Tankers and
Tank Containers) Regulations 1981, which deal with such matters as the design and construction of
vehicles, labelling, driver training, information to be carried and parking. Other regulations are in the
pipeline, and I hope that the Health and Safety Commission will accept the recommendations of the
advisory committee. It has set up a sub-committee on dangerous substances to study and report on
such matters.
We are looking at a hierarchy of controls and trying to ensure that hazards and risks are reduced. I
greatly welcome the comments of those hon. Members who have direct experience, including the hon.
Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels),
who spoke with expertise not only of the industry but of the Health and Safety Executive. In
considering the positive benefits from present arrangements on health and safety at work, in which the
regulations will play a part, I place much emphasis on the close involvement of the Factory Inspectorate
and other Health and Safety Executive inspectorates in giving guidance and advice to industry. There is
a great fund of expertise in the Factory


Inspectorate; and 95 per cent. of inspectors' time when visiting factories is spent giving advice,
information and guidance to employers. They should be seen as people whose expertise is of immense
advantage to industry in ensuring that processes are safe and without risk to health.
I do not wish to fall out with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) —
[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because I suspect that I shall be having debates with him for
several years, I hope with me remaining on the Government side of the House, and him remaining on the
other side. But whatever our position in the House, we share a concern which has been well expressed
today. If I cannot answer every point in detail, I shall write to hon. Members and ensure that the
information they requested is passed on.
I shall spend no more than a moment on the July versus January point and the December edition. I have
written to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East about it, and I draw his attention to the
Official Journal of the European Communities of 5 August 1982, which gives the date of 8 July
1989. That date has been around for three years, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that there
was no intent—

Mr. Prescott: It is just that the Department was
sloppy.

Mr. Bottomley: As the Minister responsible, I accept
the blame, but it may have been the fault of Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
The hon. Gentleman talked about disclosure of information. The Health and Safety Commission is to
issue a discussion document in March on the possible changes in the law on disclosure information, in
response to a direct request from Ministers to review the law in this area. The hon. Gentleman seemed
to imply that the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazardouss Regulations overtake and replace the
Notification of Installations Handling Hazards Substances Regulations, which were introduced a few
years ago, because there was doubt about whether the European Community would introduce its
directive in time. They do not replace those regulations; they add to them.
Perhaps this could be a general answer to hon. Members who asked whether the CIMAH regulations
cover small plants. The answer is that, in general, they do not. The regulations are designed to cover the
most hazardous sites, where the consequences of disaster would be the worst. My hon. Friend the
Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) was right to say—he corrected the hon. Member for
Kingston upon Hull, East on this—that the CIMAH regulations are not a substitute for the other
regulations in place, which may have been the flavour of what the hon. Gentleman
said—

Mr. Prescott: They are not safety
plans.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman will realise that
these regulations cover only the 250 most dangerous sites, and that the other 1,600 sites will be covered
by the NIHHS regulations as a second tier of sites. Other sites are covered by the normal Health and
Safety at Work etc. Act provisions.

Mr. Robert Litherland: How do the Government define a
dangerous site? At the Anchor Chemicals plant in Manchester, only the expertise of the fire brigade
averted a disaster. Under the Minister's criteria, that is a small site.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman raises a serious
matter. I shall deal later with how the regulations and their implementation will be reviewed. We must
always learn from disasters, accidents and incidents, whether at Manchester or Sheffield. No one is
claiming that the regulations are the end of everything. However, it is important to recognise that they
have come through from the Health and Safety Commission, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for
Banbury has reminded the House, is a tripartite body which has the advice—I take up a point
made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon)—of advisory groups which bring
together expertise. The regulations have, as far as possible, benefited from the advice of those who are
the greatest experts. We have tried to put them in a form that will be understood by those who come
new to an industry and by those who are confronted by circumstances that endanger those at work and
their neighbours. That is the way in which the regulations have come before the House for consideration
and, I hope, for approval. The role of safety committees is laid down in health and safety at work
legislation and there is no need to add to that in the regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) spoke with direct expertise of matters
underlying the regulations. The circular issued by the Department of the Environment gave guidance to
local authorities on the need to consult the Health and Safety Executive about developments near
hazardous sites.
The hon. Member for Wallsend has direct experience from ICI. He asked for a sense of balance and
reinforced the importance of the human factor.
Under the regulations, local authorities will be able to charge for the work that they undertake in
developing off-site plans. This will be a major new responsibility for the authorities. The Health and
Safety Executive will give high priority to their work in that area. Industry may be under pressure in
terms of cost, but it is its responsibility to achieve safety and I am sure that it will discharge it. The role
of trade unions is a valuable one, through safety representatives, and it is well known that the
Government, like their predecessors, devote considerable resources to this matter.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury for reinforcing the point that the regulations
are not to be taken in isolation. He advanced a vivid argument in saying that no amount of imposed
regulations will surpass self-regulation. I hope that both forms of regulation will work together.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) spoke about the fire at Sheffield and experience
in the area. I hope that he will forgive me if I respond to his comments by writing to him. We are
determined to learn lessons from the fire. I am sure that the Home Office and the fire service will pay
serious attention to the remarks of the chief fire officer.

Mr. Martin Flannery: When the inquiry takes place,
is there any possibility of testing the long-term hazards of such a fire? It is obvious that some firemen
have been exposed to asbestos and it is more than likely that some in the area will die from asbestosis.
An inquiry into the long-term hazards needs to be undertaken.

Mr. Bottomley: I shall write to the hon.
Gentleman.

Mr. Hardy: And to all south Yorkshire Members?

Mr. Bottomley: To all south Yorkshire Members, if I
can. Many issues have been raised that are not covered directly by the regulations. In trying to reply to
the debate I have had to omit some of the points that I wanted to make overall.
The hon. Member for Truro, with his usual robust good sense, made sure that we would not try to
substitute bureaucracy for safety. The guide to the regulations and the consultation paper show that our
aim is to create greater safety by getting individuals to anticipate the worst thing that may happen to
them, to look for the safety approach and to try to ensure that it does not happen. Nothing is
perfect—

Dr. Godman: As in
Livingston.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has intervened
twice on Livingston, but I do not think that it is for me to say much about the issue that concerns him,
especially given the recent news about Livingston and the proposed plant.
I am pleased that the House has had the opportunity to debate these important regulations, which in my
view and that of the Health and Safety Commission, as well as that of the Community, mark a major
step forward in the development of a comprehensive system in Britain for the control of hazards at
industrial plants. It is an important subject and recent events have concentrated our minds on the terrible
hazards that exist.
We have in the regulations and in the wider system of controls of which they are a part of a powerful
armoury of weapons to ensure not only that the consequences of an incident are as small as possible
but that the chances of an incident occurring are minimised. For many reasons, the world, including the
Third world, needs the products of the chemical industry. Without those products our quality of life
and expectation of life would be much less. Without such products we would have less clean water and
vastly reduced food supplies, and we would be at the mercy of the many illnesses and diseases which
can be controlled by the use of pharmaceuticals. It is important to realise that there is a need for the
chemical industry and that we cannot just wish away many of that industry's developments, although we
can do our best to eliminate avoidable risks and, when there is a disaster, to ensure that the
consequences are reduced as much as possible.
This has been a good debate. It has been illuminated by the many shared objectives. I hope that we shall
be able to ensure that the chemical sites make good neighbours. The CIMAH regulations help towards
meeting that objective.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant
to Standing Order No. 4 (Prayers against Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (negative
procedure)).

The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 140.

Division No. 98]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Boyes, Roland
Flannery, Martin


Caborn, Richard
Foulkes, George


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Garrett, W. E.


Cowans, Harry
Godman, Dr Norman


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hardy, Peter


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Dewar, Donald
Hughes, Simon (Southward)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Kennedy, Charles


Ewing, Harry
Kirkwood, Archy





Leadbitter, Ted
Pike, Peter


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Prescott, John


Litherland, Robert
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Snape, Peter


Maxton, John
Strang, Gavin


Meadowcroft, Michael
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Michie, William



Nellist, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Parry, Robert
Mr. Don Dixon and


Penhaligon, David
Mr. Gareth Wardell.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Lyell, Nicholas


Amess, David
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Ancram, Michael
Macfarlane, Neil


Ashby, David
Maclean, David John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Major, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Malins, Humfrey


Baldry, Tony
Malone, Gerald


Batiste, Spencer
Marland, Paul


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Mates, Michael


Bellingham, Henry
Mather, Carol


Benyon, William
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Merchant, Piers


Bottomley, Peter
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Bright, Graham
Mudd, David


Brinton, Tim
Neale, Gerrard


Brooke, Hon Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Neubert, Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Newton, Tony


Burt, Alistair
Nicholls, Patrick


Butler, Hon Adam
Norris, Steven


Butterfill, John
Onslow, Cranley


Carlisle, John (N Luton)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Carttiss, Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)


Cash, William
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Chope, Christopher
Pollock, Alexander


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Portillo, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Powell, William (Corby)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Powley, John


Conway, Derek
Proctor, K. Harvey


Cope, John
Raffan, Keith


Couchman, James
Rhodes James, Robert


Crouch, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Dorrell, Stephen
Roe, Mrs Marion


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Rowe, Andrew


Dover, Den
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Dunn, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


Durant, Tony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Eggar, Tim
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Evennett, David
Spence, John


Fallon, Michael
Spencer, Derek


Fraser, Peter (Angus East)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Galley, Roy
Steen, Anthony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stern, Michael


Gummer, John Selwyn
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Harris, David
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Hayward, Robert
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Henderson, Barry
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Hickmet, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hill, James
Sumberg, David


Hind, Kenneth
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Jackson, Robert
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lang, Ian
Thurnham, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Tracey, Richard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Lightbown, David
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Lilley, Peter
Waddington, David


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Lord, Michael
Waller, Gary


Luce, Richard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)






Warren, Kenneth
Wood, Timothy


Watson, John
Woodcock, Michael


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)



Whitfield, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wiggin, Jerry
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and


Wolfson, Mark
Mr. Archie Hamilton.

Question accordingly negatived.

Teachers (Scotland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.
Lang.]

Mr. Gavin Strang: I make no apology for prefacing my
speech with a criticism of the Secretary of State for failing to take this opportunity to make a statement
to Parliament on an issue of such gravity to Scotland.
I do not doubt the Under-Secretary's ability to put the Government's case, but it is a tradition that the
Secretary of State replies to Adjournment debates on issues of major national significance. I hope that
the Under-Secretary will explain the reasons for the Secretary of State's absence, so that we can judge
whether he has treated the teachers, Scotland and Parliament with contempt.
The crisis in Scotland's schools is the outcome of years of frustration in the teaching profession at the
Government's educational policies. Successive years of cuts in spending on Scotland's schools are now
having a serious effect on the quality of education. Falling school rolls should have enabled us to
improve the range of opportunities for our children. Instead, we have had the three blackest years in
Scottish education.
National and local spokespersons for the Conservative party may convince some people with their
propaganda that we cannot afford a decent state education system, but teachers and others know that
the Government found thousands of millions of pounds for the Falklands campaign, are finding
thousands of millions of pounds in their struggle against the National Union of Mineworkers, and plan
to spend over £10,000 million on a new nuclear weapons system. It is a question of priorities;
if the Government wanted to do so, they could find the £100 million or so that is needed for
Scotland's schools.
The vast majority of our teachers are dedicated to their work. They want the best for our children. It is
no use the Government harping on about pupil-teacher ratios. Even the Under-Secretary's predecessor
acknowledged that making cuts in teacher numbers proportionate to falling rolls would necessitate a
decline in standards. I say, "Even the hon. Gentleman's predecessor" because the hon. Member for
Edinburgh, North, as he was then, now Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Fletcher), used to make speeches that
attracted the headlines, "Lothian a disgrace". When one read the report, one found that Lothian was a
disgrace because it was spending more per pupil than any other authority in Scotland. It had the best
pupil-teacher ratio. Things have changed with a vengeance in Lothian. We are suffering a massive cut in
education opportunities in our schools as a consequence of the policies of the Lothian regional council.
The position throughout Scotland is severe as a result of the lack of resources, especially a lack of the
additional resources that are required for the new standard grade curricula.
Teachers' salaries have now fallen well behind the standards set by the Houghton committee. Any
objective comparison of the movement of teachers' earnings with average earnings in general or the
average earnings of non-manual workers puts that beyond dispute. To compare teachers with other
public sector groups that have suffered under the Government or to take as the base year for
comparison the position immediately prior to the Clegg committee award is specious, and Ministers
know it.


Perhaps the main reason for the teachers' anger is the deterioration in their conditions of work. Last
November, the Secretary of State received the Scottish joint negotiating committee working party report
on teachers' workload. Let me quote some of the important conclusions in that report.
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Malone) scoffs, but the report was
agreed by both teaching union and management representatives. I should like to quote some of the
conclusions which, I emphasise, the Secretary of State received last November. The first conclusion
that I should like to quote is:
a significant change in the nature and extent of teachers' work content and workload has taken
place and continues to take place".
The second conclusion that I should like to quote is:
the changes are fundamental, progressive and … once complete, they will result in a
higher level of workload than before".
Another conclusion is:
the effect of these changes, in circumstances of limited resources in terms of teaching staff,
support staff, equipment and materials, has been to place increasing demands upon the personal
contribution, personal commitment and personal time of teaching staff".
And another conclusion is:
the cumulative effect of the changes, pressures of work and lack of recognition is undermining
the morale of the teaching workforce".
In preparation for today's debate, I visited Portobello secondary, the largest secondary school in my
constituency. I was very impressed by the stance taken by the teachers, but I was particularly impressed
by the enormity of the additional hours of work that teachers have had to cope with to prepare the new
curricula for the standard grade courses.
In view of the teachers' concern about the deterioration in their conditions of work as documented by
the working party report, it was disgraceful that the Secretary of State put forward a proposal in
December that the Scottish joint negotiating committee should carry out an internal pay and conditions
review with a remit to reduce rather than improve conditions of service. I hope that Ministers are under
no illusions about the depth of feeling among our teachers in Scotland at this time. Surely the result of
the most recent ballot by the Educational Institute for Scotland, when there was an overwhelming vote
in favour of boycotting documentation and procedures connected with the Scottish Certificate of
Education examinations in 1985, made some impact on Ministers.
Like most hon. Members here today, I attended last week's meeting of teachers' representatives from all
over Scotland. These people were not EIS activists but teachers from parts of Scotland where there is
no tradition of militancy and certainly none in the teaching profession. The reality is that thousands of
teachers who would hardly have contemplated this kind of action a few years ago are now doing so
because they believe that the Government are influenced only by this type of action. Year in and year
out their representatives have campaigned and made representations but the Government have totally
failed to respond.
Teachers are concerned about their salaries and conditions of work, but they are also frustrated at the
lack of resources and the conditions now prevailing in the schools. I hope that the Government realise
that their

present stance will not succeed. They will not be able to ride this out on the basis of what is currently
on the table. It is not a matter of the leadership of the EIS or the other unions out in front leading their
members into action. It is the opposite. The leaders are responding to massive and still growing
pressure for action to halt the attack on Scotland's teaching profession and on standards in our schools.
The anger and despair among teachers is probably more widespread now than ever before. Individuals
for whom industrial action was anathema a few years ago are now convinced that it is the only way to
influence the Government.
The halting of curriculum development for third-year pupils following courses for the new standard
grade certificate is now seriously damaging their future prospects. I hope that the Minister will comment
on that, because although there has been a great deal of publicity about the action in Ministers'
constituencies the most serious aspect of the industrial action is the threat to pupils who have embarked
on phase 1 of the new certificate. Most schools have run out of materials and there is no authentication
of new materials. Those pupils are in a no man's land, not knowing whether they are to press ahead with
the new curriculum to be assessed for examination in the fourth year or whether they are to revert to
O-levels.
It is not just a matter of the damage to children's education. There is widespread anxiety among pupils
and parents that the grade and qualification that they will obtain will be seriously impaired as a result of
the present situation. [Interruption.] Conservative Members seem to regard that as some kind of
indictment of the teachers' case, but it is nothing of the kind. It is a reflection of the strength of feeling
of professional teachers who have been driven to this action.
The Secretary of State has always known that his suggestion of an internal review with a remit to reduce
teachers' conditions of service is utterly unacceptable. The teachers' request for an independent pay
review has overwhelming support, and it is fair and reasonable. It is high time that the Government made
a positive response.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr.
Strang) for making it clear that he intended no personal criticism of me in his opening remarks, but I
found his comments about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State both spurious and bogus. [HON.
MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] This Adjournment debate is being handled in entirely the normal way. I
assure the House that my right hon. Friend is deeply concerned, as is the whole House, about the
situation in Scottish education. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State personally met
the unions and the management side before he reached a decision on the request for a review. That is
why, immediately there was a request from the Scottish Joint Negotiating Committee, he agreed to
another meeting. That meeting took place on 28 January.
I note that the hon. Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing) and Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar),
who represent the Scottish Opposition on education matters, are in their places. The hon. Member for
Edinburgh, East has referred purely to pay. It is important to clarify the


position. Opposition Members originally signed an early-day motion on pay and conditions of service.
The teacher unions have never asked for an independent review of pay and conditions of
service.

Mr. Strang: It is true that the title of the debate refers
to the teachers' claim for an independent pay review, but I made it obvious in my speech that I was
talking about pay and conditions.

Mr. Stewart: That is an important point. I understand
that that view is shared by the Opposition Front Bench. The point is crucial at this stage of the
negotiations with the SJNC.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Minister is seeking to make clear
the Government's position on pay and conditions. The Secretary of State has said to the teacher unions
that he is prepared to discuss conditions provided that the outcome, in terms of pay, is within the
Government's economic policy. In other words, the Secretary of State will make teachers' conditions
worse, in exchange for a pay increase of, say, 3 per cent. That is simply not
acceptable.

Mr. Stewart: No, that is not the position at all. We are
not insisting on any absolute conditions, as I hope to make clear.
As always, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made a calm speech. However, it is important to
distinguish between two key issues—sympathy with the desire of teachers for better pay, and
the attitude of hon. Gentlemen towards the current action by teachers.
I can, of course, understand the first concern. I am myself the son of a teacher. However, it is a
distortion of reality to reserve sympathy for teachers prepared to take extreme action rather than for
their victims. The action is unprecedented in a number of important respects, notably in relation to
examinations and certainly in the fact that sustained action has been taken against the education of
pupils who happen to live in the constituencies represented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State and by my hon. Friends who are members of the Government. On a sustained basis, such action
is unprecedented in the history of the trade union movement in Britain or
elsewhere.

Mr. George Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Stewart: Not only is it immensely damaging, but it
has the most serious implications, because it is action that can in theory be repeated at will by the
teachers or by any other trade union.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East raised a number of general questions about expenditure on
education. That is not strictly the subject of the debate. However, expenditure per pupil in Scotland, in
money terms and in real terms, is higher than ever before. It is also true that pupil-teacher ratios are
better than ever before.

Mr. John Maxton: rose—

Mr. Stewart: Let me set out the current position of the
respective parties. The teachers believe they have a grievance which they want to be resolved only by an
independent pay review. My right hon. Friend did not turn down that request out of hand. On the
contrary, he made the reasonable and constructive suggestion that the Scottish joint negotiating
committee for teaching staff in school education should itself carry out a review of pay and conditions
of service together.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Stewart: This body, set up by Parliament, was
established in 1982 with the statutory responsibility for precisely those
areas.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Stewart: I have already given way twice
— [Interruption.]

Mr. Barry Henderson: On a point of order, Mr.
Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members, during an Adjournment debate, to heckle the Minister
in the way that some hon. Members are doing now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It is very clear
that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon.
Gentleman to resume his seat. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Stewart: I have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, already
given way twice.
The Scottish joint negotiating committee has both teachers and employers among its members. It
therefore has the necessary experience and expertise to undertake a review. There is no case for passing
the responsibility for making recommendations to a body with no responsibility for implementing
them.
The SJNC was established recently by Parliament, and its remit covered both pay and conditions of
service, but so far it has not conducted the kind of review which is now suggested.
My right hon. Friend and I met both sides of the Committee on 28 January at their request. At that
meeting we stressed that we would be prepared to consider a pay and conditions of service package on
its merits. If it were sufficiently attractive, we agreed to undertake the very difficult task of re-ordering
our existing spending priorities to provide additional finance. We would, of course, expect education
authorities to make their contribution, too, and I do not pretend for a moment that any such re-ordering
of priorities would be other than extremely difficult.
At that meeting the management side accepted the good faith of the Government's intentions and agreed
that a review of the kind that we suggested represented a reasonable way forward. It appreciated, I
think, that a guarantee in advance that the outcome would be funded in full was not feasible. Obviously,
my right hon. Friend could not give such an undertaking before he knew what any package
contained.
Subsequently, I was heartened—as I hope all hon. Members were—by the news that the
teachers' side was willing to consider the proposals for a review of pay and conditions of service
outlined by the management side at the last SJNC meeting on Thursday. I hope that that expression is
widely shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I hope that at the further meeting this
Friday the teachers' side will come back with a constructive response from its membershipa to what the
management side proposed. I am sure that it offers an acceptable way forward.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East mentioned the teachers' perception of the heavy demands made
by the job, and no one has ever sought to deny these perceptions,


although the report to which he referred had an absence of quantification of burdens. Nobody denies
the pressures that effective and worthwhile curriculum development can bring, at least in the critical
stages. Equally, I hope that nobody denies the facts of a 32½ hour working week and 12
weeks' holiday a year, which represents some acknowledgement of the strains of the job.
This brings me to the real stumbling block between the parties—conditions of service. Recently,
and here I am answering specifically the point put to me by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East, certain
duties which were always regarded as part and parcel of a teacher's job have come to be regarded more
as optional extras than indispensable elements. The Government want to achieve much greater clarity of
definition about the work of the modern teacher. For example, parents have a right to know whether
attendance at parents' evenings is purely voluntary or a firm commitment.
We are not insisting on any absolute conditions. We have simply pointed out the main uncertainties,
which we think should be clarified, and the points which need to be covered. I am convinced that we
need to move as quickly as possible to a state of affairs where all parties know exactly what is expected
of them. That must be in everybody's interest—parents, pupils and, not least, the teachers
themselves. It is surely a reasonable expectation of an established negotiating body that these areas
should be clarified in conjunction with any consideration of pay.
I hope that I have demonstrated to the House that the Government have responded in a genuinely
constructive way. Against that background, it saddens me to see how the trade unions are exacting a
savage penalty from pupils who have committed no conceivable offence.

Mr. Foulkes: The Minister referred to pupils who are
innocent in this dispute. My son is one of them—he is affected on three days a week at the Kyle
academy. The Minister knows that I have written to the Secretary of State suggesting a possible way
forward, but I have had no reply. Is it not about time that the Secretary of State looked at possible ways
of conciliation in this dispute, because there are ways in which the dispute can be resolved? The
Secretary of State should not be digging in as he is, and seeing the teachers unions digging in on the
other side. As there are ways forward, will the Secretary of State and the Minister seriously consider
them?

Mr. Stewart: We have suggested a way forward. I
have read the hon. Gentleman's letter, and he will shortly receive a reply to it from my right hon.
Friend.
Let us look at some of the actions which the EIS is taking, which go way beyond its response in
previous disputes. The action in the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are members
of the Government is not the action of a professional body. I hope that there will

be an early return to professional pride and scruples before the damage inflicted on these pupils is
irretrievable. That kind of action, apart from being damaging, is completely pointless.
I was asked about the attack on the standard grade examinations for 14 to 16 year-olds—an
attack which strikes at our attempts, fully supported by the education profession, to provide better and
more relevant teaching which will help positively to equip youngsters of all abilities for adult life. It is
particularly damaging for those pupils who are now being taught the four phase 1 standard grade
subjects — English, mathematics, science and social and vocational skills. We have made it
clear that those courses should continue. I have asked the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to
make a careful assessment of the situation and to advise us urgently on what further measures might be
taken to ensure satisfactory provision for third-year pupils who are being affected by the action.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred to the threatened disruption of examination procedures
— for example, the withholding of the forms putting candidates forward for SCE examinations
or the orders of merit which provide a ranking of candidates' expected abilities. The absence of the
orders of merit is particularly unfair; without them candidates who do not perform to their true ability
for compassionate, health or other reasons may not have enough evidence for an appeal against their
mark. I am happy to be able to report to the House that on the latest figures there is evidence that many
teachers are showing a sense of personal responsibility by not boycotting the examination procedures. I
am told that by today about 80 per cent. —120,000 out of 150,000—of the forms for
putting candidates forward for the exams had come to the board, and that two thirds of the marks for
modern languages oral examinations had been received by the Scottish Examination Board.
The board is also discussing with the Scottish Universities Council on Entrance what account
universities can take of lower performance than expected by candidates for entrance.
My message to hon. Members in all parts of the House is to think long and hard about the fundamental
issues at stake in the dispute. I hope that all hon. Members will use their influence to press teachers in
their own constituency to give the management side proposals within the SJNC a fair chance. I do not
ask Labour Members necessarily to support the Government, but these proposals from the management
side represent a reasonable way forward. I hope that we get a package to consider and that we shall get
it as soon as possible. We shall consider it on its merits in the interests of everyone concerned with
Scottish education.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Twelve o' clock.